Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Theobald Bagot John Butler


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 03:03, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

James Theobald Bagot John Butler

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Delete: as non-notable, untitled minor noble. Quis separabit? 19:27, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:14, 25 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete - I see no reason why this would meet WP:GNG.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  02:58, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * This is Wikipedia - please leave your liberal idealism outside. What matters here is sourcing, often contemporary, especially Debrett's, The Times, Who's Who and as a Cambridge graduate Venn+Venn.  I bet that Rms125a-at-hotmail.com hasn't bothered to check those sources, which is just plain lazy.  It is irrelevant whether someone "deserves" an article for "working hard from the bottom and contributing to society", versus whether someone "doesn't deserve" an article because they were privileged.  Who are you to judge?  You can't so rely on the sourcing. Quentin Q. Quackenbush (talk) 05:05, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not entirely sure what you mean or what your point is.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  05:44, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you should familiarise yourself with policies before attempting to !vote? A lot is known about clergymen from the 19th centuries, at the time they held fairly high social statuses were quite well-paid, and often were younger sons of aristos. But if you don't understand the social history, if you don't understand how Wikipedia relies on sources, but you want to pursue some idealistic liberal crusade where you vote to delete an article solely on the basis that its subjcct didn't "deserve" an article ("yeah, that'll teach 'em, the bastards!"), it's not a good idea for your to !vote, is it?  Quentin Q. Quackenbush (talk) 13:52, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Wow, um you seem to have a very clear idea of what my opinions on the matter are. As you seem to have a lot of edits on wikipedia (6), I am probably too inexperienced even to understand how much my grasp of policy obviously pales in comparison to yours. I am a little confused however, so perhaps you could explain my views on the subject even better for me?  InsertCleverPhraseHere  14:01, 25 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Fails WP:GNG. &mdash;  LeoFrank  Talk 05:11, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 25 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete as still questionable for solid independent notability. SwisterTwister   talk  04:22, 30 March 2016 (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.