Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sir John Threston


 * 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. j⚛e deckertalk 02:48, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Sir John Threston

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

There is no indication that this guy passes any notability requirements. He brought a suit, and he was a knight. Nothing about him distinguishes for many other contemporaries who did exactly the same things.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:41, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

*Keep As per the other articles, if the subject was a knight they pass notability per WP:ANYBIO. The same is probably true (though arguable) if the "Sir" refers to a baronetcy Fiachra10003 (talk) 19:40, 31 July 2014 (UTC) *Delete. The references appear unverifiable or incorrect. Fiachra10003 (talk) 14:19, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. No evidence of notability. He was a knight, which was not then a significant honour. He was involved in a lawsuit - evidence of existence, but not of notability. Maproom (talk) 23:15, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete - not even any evidence that subject was Sir John. Just another Threston vanity item, with crappy logic and threadbare sources. -- Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  23:39, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 1 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete per nomination, he existed but did not seem to be notable by Wikipedia standards. EricSerge (talk) 03:23, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete No evidence of any notability. Kleuske (talk) 09:00, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete under WP:CSD for having been created by a member of this sock farm, noted for creating elaborate hoaxes. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:36, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete per above & Mainly WikiDan61 - All created by a sock who prefers promoting non notable people. – Davey 2010 •  (talk)  13:45, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete all: After the recent update of LagondaDK on his Talk page I suggest ALL of the "articles" listed on Sockpuppet investigations/AustralianThreston as part of the sockpuppet network should be speedy-deleted. I think, this is proof enough, that there is not a single one, which is NOT a hoax or at least provide fake information.--Susumu (talk) 22:13, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete -- The contributor appears to have done detailed research into his family history. It may well be true, but everything in the article shouts NN.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:43, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete - although it may be mostly true, this person is just a run of the mill knight. There is zero evidence that the family ever had noble titles. Bearian (talk) 19:56, 5 August 2014 (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.