Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Bayne of Pitcairlie, writer to the signet. (1620-1681).


 * 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. Essentially, the article was improved during the debate, meaning that more people were convinced it could be retained towards the end. One editor suggested closing as "no consensus", which defaults to "keep" anyway. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  10:36, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

John Bayne of Pitcairlie, writer to the signet. (1620-1681).

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:GNG, though the sepuchral monument may actually be notable. Kleuske (talk) 21:46, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The article doesn't currently meet WP standards (it doesn't explain very well who Bayne is, needs renamed, and doesn't fit with usual article format), and I don't think Bayne quite meets notability requirements despite playing a small role in the history of Scotland and its architecture, although maybe there are more sources offline. It would be a shame to lose the information. Information on the funerary monument could be added to Greyfriars Kirkyard (which already has a picture of it): there are some brief sources online e.g. and a bibliography on the churchyard by Historic Environment Scotland. His former residence Pitcairlie House is Category A listed which means it's probably notable, so an article could be created on it. Information on his involvement in the construction of other buildings or his relationships with the likes of William Bruce (architect) could be added to those articles if references meeting WP:RS exist. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:31, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:59, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:59, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:59, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:00, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete per WP:NOTGENEALOGY. The subject isn't notable. The article abuses a bunch of primary and unpublished sources which violates WP:V. We already have an article on Greyfriars Kirkyard where information about the mausoleum would exist. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 19:10, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak keep -- Sure in its present form it is a poorly written article. However only one of the sources is unpublished (though this is cited three times).  The rest look like reputable works (though older ones).  The article is certainly capable of rescue.  The question is whether he was notable, and that is where I have doubts.  He clearly made enough money to buy an estate; and we are told his house is category A listed; he also founded university bursaries, which apparently ceased to be awarded in 1901.  That might just about be enough for notability.  If kept, the article could become John Bayne of Pitcairlie or John Bayne (1620-1681), with a capnote placed on John Bayne.  Peterkingiron (talk) 15:05, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   08:04, 24 July 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete or incubate as Draft: I have added a couple of references resulting from my searches. However, while the article is an entirely worthwhile piece of genealogical research (presumably also in the book mention on the Blogspot link), and I share 's reluctance about losing it, I am afraid the subject's own activities and interactions with others do not seem sufficiently notable in themselves for inclusion. AllyD (talk) 09:37, 24 July 2017 (UTC) Noticing that the article was nominated for deletion 21 mins after creation, I wonder if a period with maintenance tags might have been better, to enable/assist the author in strengthening it? I have therefore suggested incubation as an alternative, though still feeling that the necessary demonstration of notability may just not be achievable. AllyD (talk) 09:47, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * This is one of those articles I hated to nominate, but If I were the author I would hate it more if it were suggested it needed more work, and it got nominated *after* I had put in more effort. Tagging an article is a good practice, but tagging articles that fail WP:GNG and are up for nomination anyway, just seems like a waste for everybody involved. Kleuske (talk) 09:58, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep There is no question that the subject is a notable individual. His tomb alone, which survives in Greyfriars kirkyard, Edinburgh, would merit an article. However, the text is not written in, or formatted in, a suitable Wikipedia-style and needs serious reworking. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 13:49, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:46, 1 August 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 19:44, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * We're at an impasse. Would one of you consent to userfy this? I don't think the subject is notable, at all, but either of you could attempt to rehab it. If this closes as no consensus I'm likely to re-nominate it in a couple months to try again. Please advise. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 19:53, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I've done some superficial reformatting of its text to make it more in line with Wikipedia standards, and also shortened the title (since there is only one article on a person with that name), and added a little bit of new content. The subject is considered notable by numerous old sources - I think it is irrelevant that those sources are sometimes hundreds of years old since notability for Wikipedia purposes does not diminish over time. However, there are recent sources that also opinion his notability, such as "The book provides a biography of John Bayne of Pitcairlie Writer to the Signet, which is a fascinating story in itself", part of a review of a recent book  on John Bayne. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 18:46, 10 August 2017 (UTC)


 * My vote was "weak keep" as I have doubts as to his notability. One solution to an impasse is to close as "no consensus", which has the effect of keeping it.  Peterkingiron (talk) 17:40, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Notability does not expire, this person was notable in the 1600's and is therefore still in compliance with WP:GNG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aguyintobooks (talk • contribs) 21:13, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep The subject is notable. It makes no sense to delete articles we think shouldn't be deleted. The notability guidelines are there to suggest standards and guide our thoughts, not to require us to remove material on worthwhile topics. Thincat (talk) 08:58, 17 August 2017 (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.