Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clifton family


 * 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. Secret account 22:19, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Clifton family

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

I can't see how this family is notable. According to the article: Cuthbert bought land, John was a wealthy squire, and Henry was an inheritor. Tavix (talk) 23:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Looks like genealogy to me. Mangoe (talk) 23:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:03, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. Too little coverage to justify notability. The third entry (Henry Talbot de Vere Clifton) reads like an attack article. Nsk92 (talk) 03:40, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete WIkipedia is not a geneology project. But if there isn't a geneology wiki there should be one... ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:37, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:56, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. Mandsford (talk) 17:36, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep -- We have an article on Lytham Hall. The article claims that members of the family were Members of Parliament.  It aslo refers to two baronetcies.  All of these would warrant individuals in the family mhaving an article.  The present article consists of stubs on three of them.  Catholicism was significant on the Fylde penninsula and it is suggested that this was supported by Catholic landowners granting tenancies to Catholic farmers.  There is plenty of potential for the developemtn of this article, which is currently in the nature of a stub (or 4 stubs).  It is not mere genealogy.  Peterkingiron (talk) 17:32, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, without prejudice to later re-creation. BLG suggests the two knights of the shire were in the 1300s. Only one of the Clifton Baronetcies was created for this family. (For Sir John Clifton, born 1628, created baronet 1662, died 1694 and baronetcy extinct.) I don't think there's enough material in the intervening eleven generations to really warrant an article from what I've seen. Any new creation should at least do a better job of tying them together. Choess (talk) 01:30, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete (without prejudice) per Choess. Currently merely a geneology, thus not notable, but it could be something more. Bearian (talk) 01:21, 10 December 2008 (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.