Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sir Richard Threston

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 02:46, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Richard Threston[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a confusing article, but after having read it multiple times I realized there was no claim to notability. This person was the executor of the estate of someone who was notable, no claim is given that Ricahrd Threston himself was notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:15, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per WP:GNG. The nom has begun a crusade to delete every contribution a user they don't like has made. This nomination is questionable in the vein of WP:IDONTLIKEIT like all the others. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:24, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You can skip the ad hominem defense, and explain how he meets WP:BIO The entire article, "Sir Richard Threston (Sir Richard de Threton) was a priest, executor of Sir Robert de Throp, and former a chancellor of King Edward II of England." is ungrammatical and unclear. Was Threston or was de Throp "a chancellor of King Edward II" and is there any online reliable source in addition to the book cited, so that others can verify the claim? Being a "chancellor" might be a good claim to notability. Edison (talk) 19:21, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have a problem with users that make decisions about the editor, rather than the article at hand. I make no apologies. The one mention I could find is the 1898 Cutts book. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:23, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep If the subject was a knight they pass notability per WP:ANYBIO. The same is probably true (though arguable) if the "Sir" refers to a baronetcy - there are certainly lots of baronets with articles in wikipedia whose only notability is the "Sir" in front of their name! Fiachra10003 (talk) 19:38, 31 July 2014 (UTC) *Delete. My brief further research suggests that the citations do not exist or do not support the article Fiachra10003 (talk) 14:06, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Actually this article may be part of an proactive campaign to boost the notability of a living person. Do we even have clear evidence that this person really existed?John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:49, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm almost certain that this and the other articles are designed to boost the image of T.R. Threston. However, this subject appears in the 1898 Cutts book as cited. I can't find the proper mention in the Art Journal article and I'm AGF'ing on the others. This isn't a hoax and even if it was written for the wrong reasons, I think the subject is still notable. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:23, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely agreed - the AfD re. the present-day Threshton seems to be self-promotion but that doesn't change the fact that the articles about the 14th century Threshtons seem to pass WP:GNG and to have merit - assuming the facts stated in the articles to be trueFiachra10003 (talk) 19:54, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. He is said to have been Chancellor for a king who died in 1327 (List of Lord Chancellors and Lord Keepers thinks otherwise), and to have executed a man who died in 1372. I am, let us say, sceptical. Maproom (talk) 22:50, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, maybe the intended meaning was that he executed Thorpe's will, not Thorpe himself. Even so, my !vote and my incredulity stand. Maproom (talk) 17:45, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the England in the Age of Chaucer citation was to a book which apparently does not exist, according to my WorldCat searches by both title and purported ISBN. This is either a hoax or WP:SYNTHESIS. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:56, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless the now-deleted claim that he was chancellor (or some other clear claim of notability) can be substantiated. I think a bona fide chancellor would be likely notable, but given the doubtful nature of this claim, the article seems to fail the notability test. --Arxiloxos (talk) 01:12, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination and previous comments. EricSerge (talk) 03:32, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As Sir Richard de Threton, he did exist and was a real person. What we know about him, from an illuminated manuscript of donors to St Albans Abbey, is that he was a priest, gave 20 marks to the abbey and was the executor of a former Lord Chancellor's will. IMO, appearing once in a catalog of donors does not confer notability; he's been reproduced in Cutts etc. as an example of clerical dress, not because he has any particular importance of himself. @Ealdgyth: can you supply a informed second opinion? Choess (talk) 12:35, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not appear in Phillips' Edward II. Being a priest (it isn't clear if this means he was ordained or if he was in minor orders) was not that rare a thing in this time period. Search at British History Online shows nothing - so he's not in the Fasti Ecclesiae Anglicanae - which pretty much means he didn't hold an office that would be notable. He doesn't appear in the Victoria County History volume covering St. Alban's either. Not notable. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:49, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As an aside - I would argue that WP:ANYBIO does not apply to medieval knights - there are thousands and thousands of them, and the mere knighting of someone does not fulfill "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times." Members of the Order of the Garter, yes. Tenants-in-chief, yes. Summoned to Parliament, yes. Just being knighted? No. Not every village squire is notable, and that's probably the best equivalent - or every village parson. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:57, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above - All created by a sock who prefers promoting non notable people. –Davey2010 • (talk) 13:47, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: there is no evidence of him being notable with respect to Wiki encyclopedic criteria, references are poor at best, if there is a mentioning of a Threston, there is no evidence in the references, additional to that: the involvement of sockpuppets from AustralianThreston's sock-farm raise suspicion. For more details on questionable references please check here LagondaDK (talk) 14:43, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obvious candidate for deletion per nom. and above comments. --Jersey92 (talk) 16:38, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete all: After the recent update of LagondaDK on his Talk page I suggest ALL of the "articles" listed on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AustralianThreston as part of the sockpuppet network should be speedy-deleted. I think, this is proof enough, that there is not a single one, which is NOT a hoax or at least provide fake information.--Susumu (talk) 22:14, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Notability is not inherited. As far as I can tell he was a NN cleric. This one may not be a hoax (though I do not know), but merely being executor to a notable person, without more, does not lift him beyond NN. "Sir" in this context may only mean "Rev.", and not imply a knighthood. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:04, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MILL. All priests in England once had the courtesy title of "Sir". Bearian (talk) 19:50, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.