Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John King (lord of the manor)


 * 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:23, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

John King (lord of the manor)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Notability concerns for this 18th century biography. The two references appear to be primary sources - lists of graduates of a school and geneology information. No claim of importance or significance. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 02:34, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 04:35, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 04:35, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 04:35, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 04:35, 17 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete. Unnotable clergyman with no significant accomplishments. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:09, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete not notable. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 06:07, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete -- It might conceivably be worth having an article on West Hall, Folke, into which some of the content might eb repurposed. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:02, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep -- a separate article on West Hall, Folke is an excellent idea. However, in line with my original intentions, I have now added some of the additional biographical information to the John King article which I propose supports a claim of importance and significance. Fuseemusee (talk) 11:49, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep ---one of the sources, " Notes and Queries for Somerset and Dorset" was not linked to from Google Books. I added the link. It contains detailed biographical information, making it a third-party source. Along with Charles William Dale, that makes two third party, non-directory sources.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 17:58, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete This Notes and Queries source is certainly not substantive. This section is simply a look into the town's ancestry records and it isn't even definitive about who they're talking about! "who may have been the John King...", "It was probably a son of this John King..." This book is an annals of births, deaths, marriages, baptisms, and pedigrees of the local register, simply describing King's personal milestones, not something that establishes notability. The other linked source is also a trivial list of people. I don't know how big Glanvilles Wootton would have been back then, but being rector for a town of 200 people is not a notable position. Reywas92Talk 22:59, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete - being a clergyman and buying a property (which is all the elaborately portrayed 'Lord of the Manor' really entails) are insufficient to engender notability, nor are being an alumnus of a school or appearing in church registers. Agricolae (talk) 17:08, 23 February 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.