Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Howard Johns (2nd nomination)


 * 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. No evidence of SIGCOV has been provided. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:16, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Howard Johns
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

An article on a wartime Second Lieutenant and later schoolteacher. There are articles here on several of the subject's relatives, but notability is not inherited from them. Setting these aside, we have routine listings (Census, Kelly's Directory), which may also apply to the masonic listing volume, plus an Imperial War Museum "Lives of the First World War" timeline, and my searches are not finding better. The subject does not appear to meet biographical notability criteria, whether in his military, teaching or religious service. (Note that the previous AfD on a "Howard Johns" article was for a different person.) AllyD (talk) 09:53, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and United Kingdom. AllyD (talk) 09:53, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:25, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:25, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete No credible claim of notability. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  18:37, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete fails WP:BASIC. Mztourist (talk) 02:52, 30 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep His roles – as a Second Lieutenant and schoolmaster – do not meet biographical notability criteria, but this is moot because his job as a vicar and Master Mason garner mentions in many reliable and correlative independent sources (usually as some variation of 'H. S. Johns'). His career was intriguing – being that he was a senior Freemason and the appointed rector of two parishes in Oxfordshire. Despite the CoE's opposition to masonic clergymen, he was able to be quite successful in both. Annoyed-Briefs-in-Jenkins (talk) 19:02, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Could you please identify some of those sources (preferably no more than three)? The ones in the article don't seem to confer notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:24, 2 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment -- The interest in this clergyman is that he was also a Freemason. I suspect that this is not all that unusual.  The question  is whether the intersection is notable and I am dubious whether it is, Peterkingiron (talk) 14:29, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   18:43, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Strong keep multiple important roles and criteria for notability, relatives are irrelevant Jan Bonfires (talk) 15:04, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I would repeat my plea for sources that I made above. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:43, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete - Article fails WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO and WP:NACADEMIC. Per WP:MILPERSON there is no military-specific notability guideline, and WP:RELPEOPLE is not a guideline but a WikiProject-specific guideline, but this article's subject also fails that criteria. Despite what is mentioned above, there are no sources showing notability that I was able to find; sources exist but they aren't independent reliable sources that have significant coverage of the subject (see WP:LOTSOFSOURCES). While these are subjective the subject may be interesting (see WP:INTERESTING) and may have been successful (but see WP:LOCALFAME), but these aspects don't make the subject notable. - Aoidh (talk) 20:28, 6 October 2022 (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.