Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elijah Naboth 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]

Elijah Naboth 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. First reference is a one-line mention of him building a house; the second is his own last will. Previously nominated as part of the (procedurally closed) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Staniforth bulk nomination. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:12, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and reasons specified in the bulk nomination. Uninvited Company 21:32, 21 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]

Keep Built a well known landmark in the village. StaniforthHistorian (talk) 04:31, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is not clear to me that it is a 'well known landmark in the village', let alone that were it the case it would confer notability on the person who built it. I am seeing nothing but passing reference (and not much of that) outside of a self-published genealogical family website that does nothing to demonstrate notability. As of this writing, the article has five references: three are primary sources, two recording that he voted, plus his marriage record, one is a published pamphlet that gives him a single sentence, and the aforementioned genealogy website. I have serious concerns whether the entire contents of the infobox (if not the contents of the whole article) might not be Original Research. I am going to have to say:

Delete per above. Agricolae (talk) 10:37, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not close to passing GNG with the sources in the article or in my BEFORE. If Mosborough Hill House is notable (not clear to me that it is - the raw GHITs are not encouraging) - then that is a separate topic. Icewhiz (talk) 16:23, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't find any coverage. Electoral lists do not constitute significant coverage, and the History of the Company of Cutlers ... simply names him in a list of masters and apprentices. The only other source I find is a privately published family history. Does not meet WP:GNG

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.