Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Ruthven (born 1783)


 * 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 01:18, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

John Ruthven (born 1783)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No assertion of notability: WP:NBIO. Most of the sources simply mention the man, and do not contain significant coverage about him, as is required by our notability criteria. The article was PRODded in 2013 shortly after creation, but the PROD was declined by the creator. — This, that and the other (talk) 00:37, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - Non-notable engineer who just did his job. Meatsgains (talk) 00:59, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete This is genealogy information, not a biographical encyclopedia article. No plausible claim of notability is made. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  04:16, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep The thing is, this page includes a section on his son John Folds Ruthven, who was the second locomotive superintendent of the Great North of Scotland Railway (in succession to Daniel Kinnear Clark, see steamindex page on the Great North of Scotland Railway) and such people are normally considered notable. -- Red rose64 (talk) 07:34, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * If the son is notable then we should have an article about the son, not include him in the article about his father. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 09:21, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The John Folds Ruthven content is the only thing there that is sourced in a non primary source. The rest looks a bit ORish since it is using available databases or primary sources. If his son's status is notable enough for an article, maybe rename this article to John Folds Ruthven and rewrite the content so that he is the primary subject? Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 19:15, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I could go with that. -- Red rose64 (talk) 13:01, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:07, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:07, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.  Red rose64 (talk) 15:56, 31 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Merge per precedent, e.g., Roderick_Wetherill. Bearian (talk) 17:29, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge to what? -- Red rose64 (talk) 21:56, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * It seems to have already been merged, which it did not appear when I first read this discussion. His son, John Folds Ruthven, is already part of the article. So therefore, keep as is. Bearian (talk) 19:04, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * There was never a merge. The content concerning John Folds Ruthven was part of . -- Red rose64 (talk) 19:59, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete a non-notable engineer. If his son was notable, a seperate article should be created, this article should not be renamed/merged.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:53, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Rename, selective merge, and redirect: Subject is non-notable. His son appears marginally notable but there's not enough material for a useful individual article. 1/ Delete John Folds Ruthven (a redirect); 2/ move this article to John Folds Ruthven to preserve history; 3/ selective merge to Great North of Scotland Railway (using a footnote to briefly outline personal information); and 4/ redirect this article to Great North of Scotland Railway (or a new sub-anchor). ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 01:46, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:MEMORIAL; no need to keep the article (merge / redirect) if it happens that another person mentioned is notable. If anyone would like to create such an article / add content elsewhere, they could easily move the content to their user space and do it from there, or request an admin do it for them after the fact. Since this ended up at AfD, let's just deal with this here. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:08, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
 * DElete -- I am extremely dubious that a locomotive superintendent is notable per se, nor is a 19th century patentee. The rest is mere genealogy.  Peterkingiron (talk) 19:14, 6 November 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.