Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Dwight (died 1661)


 * 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. While the consensus here is clear, there is noteworthy dissent on what role genealogies and local histories should play as key sources when establishing biographical notability. czar 16:16, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

John Dwight (died 1661)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This man verifiably existed, migrated, sat on the town council. It's a splendid article for a local or family history resource but has no place in an international encyclopedia. We do not need an article on every 17th century local worthy. Pam D  14:38, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Adding to nomination: Not notable. Pam  D  17:38, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Withdraw: OK, have it your way - seems to be technically "notable". Pam  D  22:31, 9 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Close No reason given for deletion. No, we don't need the article, we managed until recently without one. But then we didn't need Ann Carter (rioter) either, did we? Wikipedia is improved by having both these articles. Many thanks to the creators of both articles. Thincat (talk) 15:06, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete - Gets a lot of mentions in very limited histories, but does not pass WP:GNG. Onel 5969  TT me 15:36, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. Assuming good faith on the part of the article's creator, Dwight is covered in some detail in multiple histories of the town of Dedham (whose history seems to be well-covered) and his role as the progenitor of the notable Dwight family is discussed at length in the family's geneaology (if not an entirely independent source). Perhaps Slugger O'Toole could offer excerpts from the works cited to show significant coverage in these (mostly inaccessible) sources. For now, weak keep. Tenpop421 (talk) 18:12, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. Changed per contributions by FOARP and Slugger O&#39;Toole, which clearly show non-trivial coverage of Dwight. Tenpop421 (talk) 22:05, 9 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep - "a lot of mentions in very limited histories" = notable. This is a WP:BIO article, not a WP:CORP article, there is no audience requirement. Per WP:BASIC, multiple instances of WP:SIGCOV in reliable sources means the person concerned should be presumed notable and I see nothing here to rebut that presumption. For whatever reason, this early settler appears to have had a number of instances of significant coverage in non-self-published books, even if we ignore the references that only give passing coverage to this man, or which were written by family members (and thus aren't independent of the subject), that still leaves these references 1 2 as as those discussed in the article but which I do not have access to (but which appear to contain a lot of information about the subject). Obviously Wiki is not a genealogy site or a family tree site, but this article does not take that form. FOARP (talk) 18:24, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep This article is a start, but the number of sources already included shows that he has received coverage in a number of different sources. There is plenty more (see, for example,, , and ) that will, with time, be added. In the meantime, the lots of mentions currently included shows notability.  --Slugger O&#39;Toole (talk) 18:47, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep a valiant effort is needed to reference an article for a cat who passed in 1661. looks like we have notability. Lightburst (talk) 19:51, 9 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Withdraw as I suppose he's technically "notable", and is probably marginally more likely to be of interest in 10 years' time than the average sportsperson getting an article today. I'll just have to learn to live with these articles about early US citizens European migrants to North America who are notable for verifiably existing and arriving. I hope Americans are equally tolerant of articles on nationals of other countries who appear not to do anything particularly interesting beyond verifiably existing, migrating, marrying etc, but are well sourced as having done so. (Ann Carter (rioter), mentioned above, was executed, has a beer named after her, and has an article in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography) Sorry to have taken your time over this. any chance of you changing your mind and then we can get this closed? No-one else has supported deletion.  Pam  D  22:31, 9 November 2019 (UTC) corrected per JPL 80.234.189.226 (talk) 13:47, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Since he died in 1661 and the US was not founded until 1776, he was not a US citizen.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:52, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, - just because other editors don't agree with WP:SIGCOV, doesn't mean I should disregard it as well. He's not "technically notable", he's not "notable".  He is a tidbit of flotsam in the history of this country.  Using the above arguments means that there are literally hundreds of thousands of folks who get mentioned in local history and media, and genealogies who would qualify for inclusion. And nope, lots of trivial mentions does not equal notability. Onel 5969  TT me 13:17, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Well said, I gave way to pressure from those who think that being a verifiable migrant to North America pre-some-date is notability. Any long-established town in England could probably  produce verifiable  worthy local persons from that era, and the journal of the local historical society will welcome their biographies, but we don't have Wikipedia articles about how they chose the names of their children. I was perhaps too defeatist.   Pam  D  13:49, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Not only will the journals of the local historical societies welcome them, but Wikipedia will be better off for their inclusion as well. This project should welcome such entries. —-Slugger O&#39;Toole (talk) 18:46, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:SKCRIT nomination withdrawn. Any uninvolved editor can likely close this AfD. Lightburst (talk) 02:56, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * No, because a valid ‘delete’ argument has been made. Read WP:SKCRIT#1 - “ The nominator withdraws the nomination ... and no one other than the nominator recommends that the page be deleted or redirected”. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:04, 12 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Weak keep per WP:OUTCOMES. We've kept several articles about the founders of New England and New Jersey towns. Consensus can change but it doesn't appear so yet.Bearian (talk) 16:27, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Out of curiosity, which part of WP:OUTCOMES seems relevant? I can't see anything about "Early migrants from Europe to North America whose family history can be verified". Pam  D  18:03, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , there has been a longstanding consensus to keep such articles about early colonists, if we can find sources. For examples, see Articles for deletion/Thomas Hastings (colonist), Articles for deletion/William Adams (Dedham), Articles for deletion/Henry Corbin (colonist), Articles for deletion/Louis Sédilot, Articles for deletion/William Arthur Greener Penlington, Articles for deletion/William Jackson (Boston loyalist). There was no consensus from some, see, e.g. Articles for deletion/Ann Lovell. In 2007, we deleted Articles for deletion/Samuel Lincoln, but it's been since re-created, Samuel Lincoln, as a stub. John Adams Sr. was once a redirect, but has since been made into a real article. Of course consensus can change - we used to routinely keep any old high school stub. While it's the sort of stub we keep, honestly, this one is a weak case. Bearian (talk) 18:54, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for such a detailed reply. I see, there's nothing actually mentioned in WP:OUTCOMES, but there are a lot of precedents. Perhaps there should be a new section in WP:OUTCOMES for these people? Of your examples, a couple of those I looked at had entries in their country's national biographical work, which sets them apart from the run-of-the-mill "arrived here early so is notable" variety. Ah well. I just hope that Americans and New Zealandersare as tolerant about articles on people in other countries whose only claim to fame is that they existed and have been documented.  Pam  D  22:56, 14 November 2019 (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.