Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Disney Staniforth

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. Sandstein 21:27, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disney Staniforth[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Notability concerns; none of the references seem substantial. The first two currently in the article are genealogy publishers, and the third is a trivial mention of a real estate transaction. Previously nominated as part of the (procedurally closed) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Staniforth bulk nomination. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:10, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:36, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:36, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:36, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, no claim of notability, would be eligible for a speedy. Uninvited Company 21:15, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article does not even make a claim of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:49, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sources in article do not establish notability, and while I see various passing mentions in my BEFORE - I don't see in depth coverage. Icewhiz (talk) 16:26, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete There are additional sources, which seem to indicate other activities - unless they relate to a different Disney Staniforth (they refer to him as a merchant of London, and in relation to French ships captured as prizes). It does seem that he owned the patent on the plough mentioned in the article, as his widow's attorney published notices requiring payment of licence fees to use it. But I cannot see enough of these sources to see whether they amount to significant coverage - and if they do all relate to the same man, and it is SIGCOV, the article would need to be revised to include that information. So delete until someone with better access to relevant sources can clearly establish notability. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:00, 26 December 2018 (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.