Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sir John Wright (2nd nomination)


 * 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. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 00:07, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Sir John Wright
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

First, there are many inaccurate statements in this article. This person was not a knight, not a gentleman and did not have a coat of arms nor had a seat on the "King's council". Also, he was born before the Reformation so having a priest as a father is also probably an error. Once we remove those facts, in his will, he is clearly a yeoman and gave his sons a mere £6, 13, 4. While the Wright Family did do many notable things, I do not think he meets the notability guidelines for wikipedia. The sources are unreliable as I have mentioned, and they are not independent. If there was an article regarding the manor he perhaps would merit a mention but I have always suspected he was a composite person created to connect a yeoman family whose descendants emigrated to the United States to minor gentry family in Essex. The reason I re-proposed this article for deletion is I feel there are insufficient reliable sources for notability What we do have are just a couple of sentences from deeds and possibly his will but other than that he doesn't seem like a particularly important person.

The VCH History Of Essex article on the Parish of South Weald mentions they did own a modest amount of freehold property but were not the manor owners. There was a John Wright of South Weald, yeoman, who purchased the manor of Kelvedon Hatch for £493 in 1538 according to the VCH article on Kelvedon Hatch This is could be a different person - he died, presumably at Kelvedon on 5 Oct 1551 but we do not know who is parents were, see Burke's Landed Gentry p. 1640. Kirk (talk) 19:38, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2019 May 6.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 19:52, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete - I am not familiar with the subject, but most of the material that might establish notability is uncited, while that which is cited is to a self-published family history (Wright esq), a self-published web page (Your Heritage), a dated source that has 'not aged well' (Cutter, not considered reliable even in the genealogical community, let alone among historians), or is unrelated to the subject (Rice). That leaves us with a passing mention in a Wright family history that this man is an ancestors of the brothers, but WP:INHERITED.  I am not seeing a legitimate, documented, reliable claim to notability. Agricolae (talk) 20:09, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, I neglected to mention WP:INHERITED as one of the reasons (I'm a little rusty sorry!). Also, I neglected to review the previous deletion request - one of the reasons mentioned was the seat on the 'King's Council' - he was not a courtier as I mentioned. The previous reviewers thought he did meet the WP:GNG - as I mentioned, I'm arguing that while there are sources, that is a good summary of why they are somewhat inadequate to estabilsh notablily. I put a few the reliable ones above and I don't feel those have significant coverage. Thanks for your comments. Kirk (talk) 20:19, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I should add for the sake of full disclosure that the current state of the page results, at least in part, from the removal of material some time back by yours truly. I stand by those deletions, but one could argue they are to blame for the current sorry state of the page.  The pre-deletion version can be seen here .  The removed material included references to self-published low-quality web pages and an 'in literature' section that was really just a mention of supposed sources (though of the four listed, one doesn't name the family on the cited page, one lacks a page number and I am not going to search the whole book to see if I can find the info, one is to a 33-volume set with no volume number given, and one is to a self-published genealogical pseudo-history of the family that is just regurgitating various dubious traditions (for example, material on one page is sourced "from the English Records", and elsewhere it claims the subject of this article was an MP - no such member existed per History of Parliament). Agricolae (talk) 00:31, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:34, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Agricolae (talk) 00:34, 7 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete -- I find a good deal of the content of this article incredible. The list of children is probably not capable of proof, as English parish registers only began in the late 1530s.  The "Kings Council" is usually called the Privy Council and at this period was quite small, consisting only of the king's immediate advisers; if he had been one, I would have expected a Dictionary of National Biography entry.  It is possible that the genealogist has mistaken King's Council for King's Counsel, making the subject a senior barrister, but that is speculation.  However this is not hereditary.  I would not expect a knighthood to be granted to a yeoman.  However more importantly, the subject appears completely NN.  Peterkingiron (talk) 17:00, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - while the present page perhaps makes a hash of things (e.g. possibly conflating the son with the same name - - with the father), Burke 1838  does describe him as esq of Kelvedon House. Following the Wright's flight - it seems John Wright has written himself into over 50 genelogical books (starting back in 1912 or so) - all of which provide a few paragraphs - of often dubious quality. It does seems there is a small bit of reliable coverage (prior links + a few more) in relation to Catholicism in England. All this being said - this probably fails notability (lack of in depth coverage in reliable sources), but I am possibly missing the good sources with all the genealogical crud (as being related to the Wrights is "hot" - obviously each such book ties them all the way back to 1488). Icewhiz (talk) 15:17, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually, Burke's "John Wright, esq." is the great-grandson of our man, living in the mid-17th century. Likewise, based on the style at the time, the "John Wright of Kelvedon, gent." named in the second recusancy citation you give for having his son and heir John and his daughter Anne 'seduced' in 1605 would be the then-living holder of the property, and hence our subjects son, or even grandson.  For that matter, as I look at what the cited Cutter source says and compare it with the pedigree of the Kelvedon Wrights from the 1634 Visitation of Essex, it becomes pretty clear to me that someone simply invented the connection between the Wright immigrant and the English gentry family (common practice in the late 19th- and early 20th-century genealogies) and this was simply regurgitated in subsequent Wright brothers biographies rather than being independently confirmed (common practice to this day - not that the notability of this person hangs on whether or not the Wright brothers descend from him.)  The Visitation, by the way, says of our subject, in full, "John Wright, of Kelvedon in com. Essex", which is a bit slim to serve as the basis for notability. Agricolae (talk) 17:03, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOTGENEOLOGY, WP:INVALIDBIO and a failure to meet WP:ANYBIO. Seems like a minor figure who's only claim to notability is a distant ancestor. - GretLomborg (talk) 18:23, 13 May 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.