Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Staniforth (gentleman)


 * 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.  Sandstein  16:59, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

John Staniforth (gentleman)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is one of a group of ancestral sketches previously listed for deletion at Articles_for_deletion/William_Staniforth which was declined because many voters were opposed to the bulk nature of the listing.

I have speedied several of the articles. This is one of the better ones, by comparison, and I feel obligated to list it separately, for due consideration, since there were objections to dealing with these articles on a wholesale basis. You decide.  Uninvited Company 21:58, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:39, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:39, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Keep This man was definitely significant during the English Civil War, noted in various sources.StaniforthHistorian (talk) 21:22, 24 December 2018 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 15:13, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. I don't see any particularly "significant" role in the English Civil War, and he doesn't inherit any notability from his association with the Earl of Arundel. The speculations about what he may have done or whom he may have married underline the lack of good sourcing. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:47, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete From the sources available, it doesn't seem that he would meet notability guidelines. Being an agent of an earl is not inherently notable - if histories wrote about his work in that role, that might be different. Similarly with the protection from the Earl of Newcastle. I don't find it relevant that there is no clear sourcing about his marriage - that is normal for that period, except for royalty and nobility, and in no way reflects on his notability or lack of it. What does matter is that we don't seem to know anything more than that he was an agent, and he received protection. RebeccaGreen (talk) 07:04, 4 January 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.