Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Waldron IV


 * 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 23:01, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Richard Waldron IV

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

There is nothing notable about Waldron. The trivial point about his earliest possible contribution to language is just that, trivial. The sources are weak, and do not indicate intestest beyond a few geneaologists. Waldron is just plain not notable. He was a teenager making a transcription, not a writer that anyone else read, so he did not impact language in any real way. John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:39, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete: Barely a WP:BIO1E situation. I have included a little additional information in Richard Waldron (Secretary). Redirect to preserve history might be required. I was thinking that selective merge to Toilet would be useful, but the sourcing is questionable since it's a blog (though an expert one), no book sources could be found (OED just credits Harvard), the term used (cuzjohn) might be a precursor of "john" but there's not an obvious line since the first use of "john" appears to be 1932, and may be derived from jack/jakes... and Waldron didn't actually invent the term "cuzjohn" anyway but was copying an older source. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 10:04, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:10, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:10, 27 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete Not notable. Sources don't make out any real claim of notability. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 13:12, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * DElete obviously NN, even if his copy of the rules was the first extant use of the word. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:11, 30 October 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.