Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William 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 keep. Procedural Keep; multiple editors are opposed to the bulk nomination. A few pages have some support for retention. No prejudice against speedy nomination of individual pages; I believe this bulk nom prevents PROD from being used. (non-admin closure) power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:37, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

William 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)

Delete. Many articles have been created by the blocked User:NJStaniforth which all relate in some way to a family called Staniforth. It seems that the former editor was simply bunging Wikipedia with anyone of that name or connection who just happens to be mentioned in local histories, regardless of whether they are actually notable. They are for the most part niche subjects which seem to me to fail the requirements of the GNG policy. In addition, most of the articles already carry issue templates. Izzat Kutebar (talk) 08:55, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:58, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:58, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:58, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reasons as given above:

I hope I have done this correctly, from the instructions at WP:AFD. Please let me know if I need to amend or add anything. Thank you. Izzat Kutebar (talk) 09:00, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:02, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:03, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:03, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:04, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:04, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:04, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:04, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:05, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:05, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:05, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:06, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose wholesale deletion -- I agree that many of the article are on NN people, but this mass nomination does not allow for the discussion of what to do with individual articles. They are linked from Staniforth, which is about the surname, but that contains people with Staniforth as a middle name, not a surname. Surname articles are normally lists of people with that surname. A few of the people were successive owners of Darnall Hall, and their biographies might be merged there. Hey, Fiery Blades, the leading history of early modern Sheffield indicates that the family were among the leading cutlers of the town, though that does not make them notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:31, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Peter. I am more than happy to discuss individual cases and I fully accept that not all will be deleted. The AFD instructions recommend bundles if several items are nominated for similar reasons. I can break this bundle up if you prefer (all good practice for me) so would you do it by means of a limit per bundle or for example, separating the ones with a Staniforth surname? Thank you. Izzat Kutebar (talk) 11:48, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It may be worth pointing out that NJStaniforth was blocked after using FIVE different accounts in trying to influence the outcome of this Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Hext AFD discussion which concerned another member of the Staniforth family. Thank you. Izzat Kutebar (talk) 11:53, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I just want to note that as these articles are very widely varied in how they would be judged (with relevant SNGs including NGEO, NAUTHOR, NSOLDIER, NCORP, NPOLITICIAN, and others(?)), I second the suggestion to separating them. Also, at least one, Staniforth Range, seems to me like a speedy keep. A couple, for instance maybe T.L. Platts, are likely so minor that a prod would not be opposed (however given NJStaniforth's behavior, AfD might be a better way to ensure consensus). Smmurphy^(Talk) 22:54, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close with each article nominated individually (or bundled again if they are of the same topic as per nom's suggestion above). I can see the similarities between each of the articles but as Peter and Smmurphy said there are differences that need to be discussed on an individual basis. Nightfury 07:34, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Seperate please renominate individually to make it easier for editors and the closing admin to make different calls on different articles, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 21:16, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete all very obvious abuse of WP to promote a family. The alternative would be for the creator to agree to draftify all of these and put them through WP:AFC which is what they should have done, given the obvious COI but this is not an option given their indef due to socking. So yeah, just delete this mess. Jytdog (talk) 23:14, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Mixed:
1. Keep: Charles Goore (meets NPOL, Mayor of Liverpool twice), Frederick Greenwood (magistrate), John Staniforth Patteson, Ralph Clarke, Thomas Asline Ward
2. Neutral John Hext (captain), Samuel Staniforth, Staniforth Range (This seems to meet GEOFEAT, but BEFOREing this doesn't come up with much beyond an old gazette), Staniforth Road, William Staniforth
3. Delete rest.

Bad bundle - some of these are really not notable, but some are clearly notable in a BEFORE (e.g. the first mayor of Chesterfield or the twice mayor of Liverpool). I'm not sure a narrow interest range would constitute a COI, though socking is definitely a no-no.Icewhiz (talk) 11:43, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Icewhiz fwiw, I took the name of the last sock, NJStaniforth, at face value. Writing about your family is a COI; this person appears to have been using Wikipedia as some sort of ancestry.com. Jytdog (talk) 14:06, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by nominator. My apologies, I should have made clear at the outset that the basic concern here is conflict of interest, as pointed out by Jytdog. The multiple-puppet issue is secondary but does underline the bad faith of the creator. Thank you. Izzat Kutebar (talk) 07:50, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (voted above - my vote is effectively procedural keep). I also sampled articles when voting and would generally support Icewhiz's list. I might have been slightly harder on what I was prepared to keep. Justice of the Peace and Deputy Lieutenant are not usually enough for notability. High Sheriff is enough to be notable; and a person who turned down the office on health grounds may still be notable. Ralph Clarke (mayor) is what is nominated: Ralph Clarke is a dabpage. Whether mayors are notable in the English system is debatable: it probably depends on what they did during their mayoralty and whether they were also in effect leader of the council. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:45, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep. List them all individually. Mass deletions like this are never a good idea unless all articles are in the same category, not just related to the same family. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:38, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep, without prejudice against renominating them as individuals. There are several different notability claims in play here which may or may not all be equally invalid or equally poorly sourced, so it's impossible to evaluate them en masse — and even the fact that they were created by a banned user only requires us to delete for denial of attribution reasons, without precluding recreation by an editor in good standing. Some of these may be genuinely deletable as non-notables who shouldn't come back at all, while others may be legitimately recreatable by an unbanned editor — so they each need to be considered individually, not just batched together en masse. Bearcat (talk) 18:38, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep, PROD okay Some of these articles can easily be PROD-ded, and I would encourage this. SportingFlyer talk 08:03, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep There are simply too many to evaluate, please nominate on a case by case basis. From the few I looked at some seemed notable, while others probably weren't. Just because a user is banned doesn't mean they didn't have some useful contributions. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 15:53, 5 July 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.