Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sir Watkin Williams-Wynn, 11th Baronet


 * 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 redirect to Williams-Wynn baronets. I discounted the 'close' argument, which seems to me to fall into 'assume bad faith' territory. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:30, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Sir Watkin Williams-Wynn, 11th Baronet

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Doesn't appear to meet WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Possible ATD is merge/redirect to Williams-Wynn baronets. Boleyn (talk) 07:38, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 07:55, 11 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment. This article would be enough to stablish notability if it hadn't appeared in the Daily Mail. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 07:56, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 16:17, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 16:17, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –&#8239;Joe (talk) 07:34, 19 September 2021 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Redirect to Williams-Wynn baronets. A dalliance with a female groom may be fit for a rag like the Daily Mail, but hardly constitutes notability. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:53, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Close as out of process. This AFD was launched less than 5 minutes after unrelated edits elsewhere. Absolutely zero chance WP:BEFORE was even considered.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 04:06, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment user:Stalwart111, you are making allegations of what is going on in someone else's head (on several pages) and misjudging it. As has been recommended to WIkiproject Notability before, the aim when assessing CAT:NN is partly to make sure AfD is never inundated, and so I keep an eye on numbers in the system, and delay nominating until there is more space for them, and then put them in together. Monitoring and assessing CAT:NN is a difficult balancing act. We won't always get it right, but are trying our best. This deserves to be judged on its merits, or lack thereof, not on what you guess has been going on in a stranger's brain. Boleyn (talk) 20:45, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * What nonsense! The majority of your nominations are completed less than 2 minutes after edits elsewhere. With a massive 5-minute gap, this one is an anomaly. There's no way you're completing anything close to what WP:BEFORE requires and your nominations are just disruptive. Eventually someone will have the guts to block you.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 00:58, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  13:09, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Redirect Very little of the article is actually about the individual in question.2601:241:300:B610:D158:6D5E:6128:D10C (talk) 04:12, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Williams-Wynn baronets because the Daily Mail is not good enough coverage.--Creoda (talk) 12:30, 3 October 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.