Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sir Thomas Minshull Stockdale


 * 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 no consensus. North America1000 16:53, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Sir Thomas Minshull Stockdale

 * – ( View AfD View log )

No evidence of notability. One source (Burke's) listing all British nobiity (and which is very closely paraphrased here), and one source from long before the birth of the subject. Looking for more sources doesn't give the impression of any notability for this baronet, at best he gets mentioned a bit in articles about his daughter who would be a more likely subject for an article. Fram (talk) 13:12, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 13:12, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 13:12, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep Entry in UK Who's Who https://doi.org/10.1093/ww/9780199540884.013.U36343 Piecesofuk (talk) 17:13, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Appears in several reference works including Whitaker's Almanack. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:04, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep per above keep votes. Sources exist to prove notability. ZettaComposer (talk) 19:25, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete: per nom, there are indeed some sources mentioning him but well, only mentioning him, no deep sigcov found CommanderWaterford (talk) 08:33, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 03:42, 18 May 2021 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete Fails WP:BASIC. The few sources only satisfy WP:EXIST. LizardJr8 (talk) 18:15, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 19:41, 26 May 2021 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep on the strength of the listing in Who's Who. A listing in a reputable national biographical dictionary counts as in-depth coverage. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:46, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. Who's Who (UK) is not a reliable source because it's self-edited: "Each entry in Who's Who is authored by the subject who is invited by the editors to fill in a questionnaire."  Sandstein   20:01, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Note that it is a reliable source for notability since those included are invited to be included on the strength of their notability and do not apply or pay to be included (unlike some other publications with similar names). -- Necrothesp (talk) 23:46, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment. The facts in an entry in Who's Who are supplied by the biographee. The selection of facts and the decision on whether to list are the responsibility of an editor, not the biographee. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:03, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheChronium  17:04, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Stockdale baronets. I'm not finding any sourcing that qualifies this subject for WP:GNG. Missvain (talk) 02:04, 7 June 2021 (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.