Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Moutray


 * 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   no consensus. Shimeru (talk) 19:40, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

John Moutray

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Non notable Royal Navy captain of the Revolutionary War period. Only claim to fame is being court martialled. The details of the action which resulted in his court martial are covered in Action of 9 August 1780. NtheP (talk) 18:54, 3 May 2010 (UTC) Note:
 * Delete. Author has a history of using WP as his personal genealogy site; a number of his edits are currently under AFD or have already failed. &mdash; Timneu22 · talk 19:13, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

listing of AfD seems to be borne out of personal animus for reasons unspecified and unclear. Removing this, and a whole lot of other pages must also be AfDd too on similar grounds. Perhaps, rather, and more constructively, retain, and suggest author places material on GlobalFamilyTree or suchlike. AfD is uncalled for. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.132.117.129 (talk) 19:34, 3 May 2010 (UTC) — 41.132.117.129 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Reply to : Please assume good faith on the part of the nominator. The reasons for the nomination are neither unspecified nor unclear; the subject of the Moutray2010's contributions has been exclusively limited to his own genealogy, and he has been duly informed of the problem.  He is free to post the material on GlobalFamilyTree or any other website that is appropriate for such purposes; that does not alter the need for the material to be deleted from Wikipedia through this AfD process.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 19:57, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I did start by seeing if there was an article to make out of the amount of material posted but then found there was already an article on the only noteworthy event posted about John Moutray so not it's not borne out of any dubious motive but simply non-notability. NtheP (talk) 22:11, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment on the original nomination: The Moultrie Courthouse is independently notable as a the home the the Superior Court of the District of Columbia. The biographical information about its namesake has been removed as non-notable, but the building itself remains notable.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 19:57, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed Moultrie Courthouse is notable and should be retained. NtheP (talk) 22:22, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete No evidence of notability as laid out at WP:N and WP:BIO. Text in the article is fleshed out with descriptions of larger events he participated in; but it does not appear that his life itself has been the subject of substantial coverage.  -- Jayron  32  05:37, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:47, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:47, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete: Fairly obvious on this one for all the reasons listed above.Rapier (talk) 18:00, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep and cleanup, it was easy to find references to the man, he was court marshaled in 1781 and a book of the proceeding has been in multiple printings as late as 1990. The creator of the article just needs more experience in the Wikipedia style of writing --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:02, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep and send to Cleanup. Sourcable historical notability is most specially notable enough for en.Wikipedia.  The article is sourced and more sources are available.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 04:45, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - aware of the rearrangement of the text and new data, but it still does not make him notable. Buckshot06 (talk) 03:08, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * And how is it now that his being written of in historical tomes does not make him notable? It's not as if he received only a brief mention as a footnote in history... his actions had historical import.  And though the events preceding and trial itself received attention at the time, let's not continue a debate that the court martial was the only thing for which history remembers this individual.  For example, in Lord Nelson, 1758-1805: A Bibliography, it is related that Nelson himself had a dispute with him, when Moutray was Commissioner of the Navy at Antigua... and this was well before the court martial events.  Sourcable and historical notability for at least a 40 year period in the 1700s is still historically notable today.   Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 05:07, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * If you have a book called "Court Martial of Captain John Moutray" that has gone through at least three printings, you are ipso facto notable. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:38, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * That's not 'a book'; its the verbatim transcript of his court martial. As such, it's a primary source and not particularly useful in establishing notability. Nick-D (talk) 08:34, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

of Note : the nominator for deletion has said above, that he did so in a blanket manner. considering the time and effort involved in debating this topic, i consider the nominator has acted in a disruptive manner. 1. i propose that the request for deletion is removed, as it was without merit , and has been supported as Notable , if only for the Notoriety , ie the loss of £1 500 000 over 300 years ago , i think equates to about £5 billion in todays equivalent. it was the biggest loss in Europe at the time, and affected the Economy of Europe for the next 4 years. 2. The fact that it suggests Court Martial, ie that John Moutray was culpable , is misleading , since the History of the Royal Navy , an Authoritative source , contriuted by President Roosevelt , clarifies that this was a Scapegoating measure , to appease the Insurance industry. 3. if John Moutray was some nefarious character, why was he buried in Honour , at Bath Abbey. This doesnt happen to undesirables. i Think its not clear, and i wish to clarify , that the court martial happened when he was in his 30's , Sir John Moutray. He was still offered Honourable placements, indeed that of Commisioner of Antigua , and was a friend of Nelson. The oft quoted head to head with Nelson, when Moutray was the Commisioner , and Nelson was their first encounter. however Moutray didnt argue with Nelson, and complied with his request , and they ended up as friends. In fact, Nelson met Collingwood at Moutrays House in Antigua , and John and Mary Moutray were supportive and remained friends with Nelson and Collingwood throughout their lives , even to the extent that Moutrays Son John , was been looked up favourably by Nelson , who again honoured their son John with a Memorial , after Moutrays son John died in the Siege of Calvi. That so many died throughout the Ages fighting for their country is something notable, and worthy of recognition and inclusion. I am not happy to have this deleted on the basis of Non- Notability, and also presenting the actual facts is not a sign of bias , as its not something that has been dreamt up in my head, but i am providing factual information that is independently verifiable , for anyone who cares to look into the matter in more detail , so finding " the court martial of john Moutray' in a google search , does not represent the final word on John Moutray , who as i said this was in his 30's , he was apparently scapegoated , and if anything redeeded himself via his association and relationship with Nelson , and was ultimately honoured in Bath Abbey . no mean feat ( ie not every sailor was honoured in Bath Abbey .) i am not happy to have anything less stand , to misrepresent this mans life and contribution to our Nations history . Who knows where we would now be if Nelson had ,infact, hung himself?? in Conclusion , respect is called for, for this man , for historical fact , and truth. Hence the wish to provide more information to provide the wider picture and context. how can that be summed up in one sentence, adn to say he was not notable , is absurd. please feel free to edit / add / delete, but to say that he is not worthy of comment is ridiculous, and has no rationale , or basis for support for those who have considered the matter objectively. this request for deletion should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.212.194.202 (talk) 10:15, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note previous comment by IP address appears to be written in the style of User:Moutray2010. &mdash; Timneu22 · talk 10:42, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

As the Nominator of this AfD, I would now like to WITHDRAW my nomination. Having studied the revisions made by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) I agree that the necessary standard of notability is achieved for the article to stay. NtheP (talk) 13:19, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Not so fast. There are still people posting delete remarks. &mdash; Timneu22 · talk 13:25, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep or Withdraw, either way I no longer support my own nomination. NtheP (talk) 13:33, 8 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Seems to meet our notability requirements (perhaps it didn't in the past, but it certainly meets those now). An honored naval sailor with a notable history with historical implications seems to meet the minima. — BQZip01 —  talk 19:54, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete The references appear to either refer to this guy in passing or are either primary sources or database-type entries. As such, notability is not established. Nick-D (talk) 08:26, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - The memorial in Bath is sufficient to demonstrate notability. Those are not idle rememberances.--Mike Cline (talk) 12:49, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. The recent improvements make it clear that he is notable after all. Alzarian16 (talk) 16:55, 10 May 2010 (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.