Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Washington (1475)


 * 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. Randykitty (talk) 16:46, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

John Washington (1475)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Totally fails WP:BIO, I really can't see where we would find sources on George Washington's 6X great-grandfather. Etzedek24 (Would it kill ya to leave an edit summary?) 19:52, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. Notability is not inherited, so people who have no notability claim in their own right do not get Wikipedia articles just because they happen to be ancestors of notable people. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a genealogy site — John Washington would have to have achieved something encyclopedic in his own right, not just be a branch of somebody else's family tree, to qualify for a standalone article about him. Bearcat (talk) 20:42, 6 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete - Being the great-great-great-great-great-great grandfather of George Washington is not notable. There are no other claims of notability in the article and a search turns up nothing but genealogy sites. -- Whpq (talk) 21:12, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOTINHERITED. He and the other relatives are not so "gr-r-reat!" Clarityfiend (talk) 23:48, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete: Should be speedy delete. &#8208;&#8208;1997kB (talk) 02:32, 7 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Agricolae (talk) 02:37, 7 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete - WP:NOTGENEALOGY Agricolae (talk) 02:40, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 15:04, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 15:04, 7 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Obviously Washington has a number of 6x grandfathers, and that alone would be NOTINHERITED. However why do we know about this one, three hundred years before Washington? Is that because of some additional reason, which would count towards independent notability? If this was a list of six articles, I'd be inclined to delete. But it's just one - what (clearly something did) has made this one appear, above the others? Andy Dingley (talk) 15:46, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
 * This AFD should have been a bundled nomination. See also Articles for deletion/Lawrence Washington (1565-1616), Articles for deletion/Robert Washington (1545 - 1620, and Articles for deletion/Lawrence Washington (1498).  These were all created by a new editor with no sources and no assertion of notability beyond being the nth great grandfather of George Washington.  So four articles and not six as you stated aboce.  I'll also note that I did look to see if there was some other notability but there's none.  -- Whpq (talk) 17:03, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
 * So is Lawrence Washington (1602–1653) up for AfD too? Is a great-great-grandfather notable (by inheritance?) but the great-great-great-grandfather isn't?   I see no WP:N policy based distinction between the two of these. "All created by a new editor with no sources" is very definitely not reason of itself to delete. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:42, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFF - the existence of other equally-invalid pages not up for deletion is one of the Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. As to the Lawrence W (1602) page, at first glance it seems to have a lot of material establishing notability, but looking at the footnotes, I get the distinct impression that it is relying heavily on 1) passing reference; 2) non-WP:RS web pages and 3) primary sources, so he may indeed not be notable either, but that would take an in-depth analysis of all the sources which I don't have time for, and anyhow would be the subject for another AfD, not this one. Agricolae (talk) 18:17, 7 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete the reason we have this article, but not one on Washington's other male ancestors in this generation is because of bias towards tracking the male line of ancestry. Nothing about this John Washington makes him even remotely notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:53, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete - TNT, no sources in article, and I don't see much that could be sourced about this individual beyond being an ancestor.Icewhiz (talk) 12:22, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete - Exactly the same as Articles for deletion/Lawrence Washington (1498), this individual does not come close to meeting notability. Dunarc (talk) 19:43, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:31, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete - he's one of many remote ancestors of a famous descendant. Bearian (talk) 20:22, 11 July 2018 (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.