Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ancestry of John Seymour (Semer) of Sawbridgeworth


 * 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. Xavexgoem (talk) 17:01, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Ancestry of John Seymour (Semer) of Sawbridgeworth

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This appears to be a genealogical paper about a WP:NN cobbler who lived in the 1500's. While some of his descendants may be notable, it does not appear that this individual is. As a genealogical study, it fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY, #2, "Genealogical entries." Toddst1 (talk) 15:36, 4 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment:: The article is NOT about John Seymour the cobbler. It IS about his ancestry, as indicated by the title.  Please show where ALL articles included in Wikipedia must be about notable persons.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pablocombiano (talk • contribs) 15:49, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 4 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment- It is not about his ancestry (from ancestors), it's about his descendants. Dru of Id (talk) 17:11, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete as not notable and original research. I appreciate that a great deal of work has been put into this article, and the discussion would be appropriate to a genealogy site, but not Wikipedia. I confess though that I found it quite difficult to follow. It is claiming that John Semer/Seymour is an ancestor of Richard Seymour, one of the early settlers of Connecticut, and many notable Americans, but that does not in itself make the subject of this article notable because notability is not inherited. A complication comes, however, in discussing John's ancestry which is the subject of this article, because it is being asserted that he was himself related to Sir John Seymour who is undoubtedly notable. Unfortunately, that does not seem to be verifiable, and even if it were, again we run up against the problem that notability does not transfer automatically to offspring legitimate or otherwise. --AJHingston (talk) 18:13, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. The man may have some notable descendants, but notability is not inherited in either direction, and Wikipedia is not meant to be a collection of genealogical entries. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 19:10, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Clearly some very hard work has been put into this article, but it isn't appropriate for Wikipedia. Looks like it contains some original research, and notability here is not inherited. AniMate 19:54, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. This article seems to have quite a bit of content about the family of Jane Seymour, wife of King Henry VIII of England, but I couldn't see anywhere in the article where it mentioned that the ostensible subject, John Seymour of Sawbridgeworth, was any relation to that Seymour family. As Roscelese says, notability is not inherited in either direction. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:41, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - this is a delightful and fascinating genealogical study (I am NOT stating an argument here), but unfortunately it is not a Wikipedia article. There is as stated above no evidence of notability for John Seymour himself, and so the article must go. I am sure there is plenty of room for such an article on other websites. Chiswick Chap (talk) 22:04, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Original research which mentions many people with the same last name, without even documenting they are related to the person who is the subject of the article, as well as some supposed descendants. Nothing here satisfies WP:BIO. Edison (talk) 03:40, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Do not delete It's difficult to understand why anyone would say that the article is not about John Sawbridgeworth's ancestry. It's entirely about his ancestry.  Please further explain how you reached this conclusion.


 * As previously noted, John's notability is completely irrelevant. There are countless Wikipedia articles on a wide variety of topics, many of them not being notable persons.  His ancestors, however, are quite notable, and the article has interest for a variety of reasons far beyond whether John himself was notable or not.  Again, I implore you to actually read the article, and to glean it's very obvious subject matter, which is that historical evidence supports the fact that he's descended from very notable people.  His notable descendents are merely further evidence of that fact.


 * This is obviously not original research as proved by the 70+ historical references cited. It is merely historical data presented in a new form as explicitly covered in Wikipedia's definition of original research


 * I would assert that the subject of John's ancestry is quite notable on its own merit without regard to whether or not John was able to live a notable life. I would further assert that the article would probably find wide interest by many in the general public who are not as interested in the genealogical aspects, as probably would be the 100,000+ descendents of John Sawbridgeworth, and possibly descendents of other branches within the clan as well totaling millions of people.  This period of history continues to generate great public interest, and in particular any facts related to Henry VIII, and his royal court.  This has been recently evidenced by the fact that Hilary Mantel, in 2009, won the Man Booker Prize for her novel Wolf Hall (named after the Seymour family manor although given more modern spelling).  This article merely expands on that seemingly interesting subject by gathering together many related historical facts in a new way.


 * Therefore, as it's been repeated over and over again that John is not a notable person, I'll reiterate that the notability of his own personal accomplishments are not the subject of this article, and are therefore irrelevant. Furthermore, the subject of his ancestry, due to the notability of the other people involved, and the period of history which it affected, is completely notable and worthy of being included in Wikipedia  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pablocombiano (talk • contribs) 13:07, 5 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment I suppose that I should be flattered that my little article is receiving so much attention. It makes it hard to imagine how so many millions of articles currently exist on Wikipedia.  Keep up the diligent work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pablocombiano (talk • contribs) 13:35, 5 February 2012‎
 * Just so you know, it's not your article.  Toddst1 (talk) 15:52, 5 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Also so as you know, Pablocombiano, Original Research is strictly forbidden on Wikipedia. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:59, 5 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Nobody here has questioned that the subject is interesting. But because Wikipedia simply cannot be a repository of everything interesting, any more than it can catalogue everything that exists, it is necessary to apply guidelines and policies on what should and should not go in. In this case, we accept that there have been a lot of Seymours on both sides of the Atlantic who are very notable and should be in Wikipedia. There is already an article on the Seymour family. The probability that they are all connected in some way seems quite strong. However, anyone who has involved themselves in this sort of research knows that it frequently impossible to conclusively prove family relationships especially this far back. Other possibilities exist than the one premised here. We expect articles to be properly referenced, but the point about the original research rule in this context is that also applies to conclusions. These need to be referenced to reliable sources. And even if the conclusions are right, the topic seems to belong within an article about the Seymour family, or one part of it, and does not appear to have a notability of its own. --AJHingston (talk) 18:35, 5 February 2012 (UTC)


 * First, thank you Toddst1 for very correctly pointing out that this is a Wikipedia article. Secondly, Chiswick Chap, I think we've previously more than adequately addressed whether or not it's original research.  Under the original research guidelines of Wikipedia, it is not.  I will repeat--that it's existing historical evidence simply reproduced in a new format.  If anyone would like to remake the same erroneous comment, please address this point.  Thirdly, AJHingston states that it's "frequently impossible to conclusively prove".  I'd like to make a point on that topic as well, by paraphrasing George Dudley Seymour as stated in his book A History of the Seymour Family: "Admittedly, we lack direct record evidence. This is not the same as to say that legal proof is lacking. Many things can be proved in a court of law by cumulative circumstantial evidence. Historians too look with favor on this type of evidence when its weight is sufficient. A single piece of direct evidence may be a lie; it may have been forged by a fraudulent dealer for the sake of profit, for example. But when we review all the known facts, and each circumstance harmonizes with all the other circumstances, and every bit of evidence fits neatly into the picture as if by magic, - then we feel entitled to claim that theory has given way to proof."  The article doesn't purport to draw any particular conclusion, it's merely a conglomeration of facts on a single topic.  Why don't we just let the reader decide?  Is there something to fear here?  Finally, I can't help but feel a little bit demonized.  If the article needs a few changes, please suggest them.  To say that it doesn't belong in Wikipedia, doesn't seem a valid point. I think I've already adequately pointed out that it does.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pablocombiano (talk • contribs) 12:48, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Please don't take any of this personally. You're not deliberately disrupting wikipedia - clearly, you are here to contribute and doing so with the best of intentions. However, this article appears to fall outside our guidelines on what we have articles on.  I'm sure that you could add tremendous value here, but probably not on this article. Toddst1 (talk) 15:59, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I guess persistent would be a better word than offended. I feel strongly about this articles inclusion on Wikipedia, and so far I haven't seen a valid reason, under Wikipedia guidelines, to exclude it  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.169.113.186 (talk) 13:10, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, in that case, you haven't been paying attention. Toddst1 (talk) 14:31, 7 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete The article is rather confusing, as there are several John Seymours. But there is no definite indication given except the name and the similar place of origin that "John Seymour (1535-1605) (contemporarily Semer) lived and worked as a cobbler," has any direct connection with   the aristocrat of the same name, John Seymour (1474–1536), "a member of the English gentry and a courtier to King Henry VIII,". Presumably he was a humble collateral or by-blow of that line, or perhaps someone from the same area named after the leading gentry family. But no information about this is given in the article. The connection seems to be that "There are remarkable parallels in personal characteristics, and lifetime achievements, between members of the British ducal branch of the family, and the American branch descended from John."  and that some of the cobbler's family had the same first name as some of the nobleman's;--and the vague non evidence of a similar seal.  This is the sort of work done by the less rigorous   genealogists  of earlier centuries, and amateurs of our own, when they were trying to prove a connection between the status-seaking descendants of the American immigrants and the high-born families in England they hoped to show they were connected with. This is not history, but the sort of thing which made genealogy a synonym for everything too vague to be part of real history. I suppose we could have an article on the american family as such, and we certainly could have one on the English; the appropriate inclusion in the article on the American "branch" would be "It has been suggested that they might have some connection with the English family", referenced to the first two references in the present article.  Wikipedia has managed  to distance itself from this sort of speculative web pseudo-information, or it wouldn't be worth the trouble of using or making. The relevant basis  policy   is that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and the consequent WP:V and WP:OR,     DGG ( talk ) 16:33, 7 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Do not Delete The conclusions reached by DGG are certainly valid possibilities. One also might conclude, after carefully reviewing the historical evidence, that John Seymour (1535-1605) was a political liability of the family in 1535, and could not be recognized for fear of damaging repercussions.  I disagree that the only evidence presented is based upon similar personal characteristics, although I do agree that it's a persuasive piece of the puzzle.  The section entitled "Historical Evidence" lists thirteen other coincidental points.  Whether DGG has been able to correctly evaluate the evidence provided or not isn't the issue at hand. The article presents worthwhile historical information on the topic, and readers deserve the chance to evaluate that evidence, and then to draw their own conclusions.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.99.197.114 (talk) 13:51, 8 February 2012 (UTC)


 * This could well be an accidental IP usage by the creator (rather than intentional sock). If so, it's a duplicate vote. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:18, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 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.