Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Shore (banker)


 * 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:48, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

John Shore (banker)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Minor late 18th/early 19th century banker. No articulation of why topic meets WP:BIO, no evidence of substantive third party sourcing. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 09:37, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete under A7. I don't see any claim of notability other than he started a bank, which I don't think is normally enough to pass the bar for WP:GNG even if perfectly sourced, which this isn't.  Dennis Brown (talk) 12:34, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 16:34, 16 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment - It is inappropriate to hammer articles of historical figures with Speedy Deletes because they don't seem notable enough to this person or that. Carrite (talk) 17:19, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * No one was hammering him. I just fail to see a claim of notability in the article.  And there doesn't seem to be any evidence that this is a historical figure, or at least the article doesn't claim he is.  Any BLP that fails to make a claim of notability is subject to CSD, no matter how long ago they passed on.  Dennis Brown (talk) 19:20, 16 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - Genealogical piece of family interest, seemingly part of a nice effort on the net at THIS URL. Unfortunately, founding a failed bank doesn't constitute sufficient significance to merit encyclopedic biography. Carrite (talk) 17:24, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete on present evidence as not notable. I'm completely with Carrite on avoiding speedy with articles such as these; the West Yorkshire Unitarians at this period are an interesting and important group of people and this is a well connected family. Assessing notability can be a bit of a specialist task and may well require knowledge of material not available on the web. There could still be something more that could tip him over the edge into notability and this clearly isn't someone whose life history has none of the necessary requirements. Family historians are often poorly placed to assess the sorts of things that are important to Wikipedians. But having said all that I doubt he can make it. --AJHingston (talk) 23:51, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. Parker and Shore's Bank |+%22Parker+%26+Shore%22&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq= seems to be notable, so an article on that could be a suitable home for this content. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:40, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * keep the founder of a bank that lasts for a century is notable. We should also make an article for the bank.  DGG ( talk ) 20:02, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually he was only one of five/six co-founders (three/four Shores -- depending on whether the article is referring to two different Williams or one William twice, one Roebuck and the Parker after which it was also named) and the bank only lasted for 69 years. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:53, 23 May 2011 (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.