Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephen Cheston


 * 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. This debate was hard to read due to improvements that occurred during it. Considered closing as 'keep' but, quite simply, it's harder to determine consensus on a fluidly-changing article. Sticking with no consensus considering this. Daniel (talk) 02:58, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Stephen Cheston

 * – ( View AfD View log )

None of this is substantial coverage. Fasti is a complete non-selective directory. Bishops are presumed notable, but not archdeacons.

The 16th century is not remote antiquity, where we sometimes assume that everyone still identifiable should have an article.  DGG ( talk ) 09:43, 21 June 2021 (UTC)


 *  Keep  Although guidelines (well, essays to be honest) do, indeed note bishops are notable, you cannot fail to recognise that WP is PACKED with Archdeacons and that there is clearly broad consensus for their inclusion. I mean, look at Category:Archdeacons of York! There are already a whole load of 'em - one more won't hurt... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 11:51, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I buy Fram's argument, so Redirect. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 16:03, 21 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Previous articles that may help
 * Articles for deletion/John Plemth
 * Articles for deletion/David Booth (priest)
 * Articles for deletion/George Henry Cameron
 * Articles for deletion/Michael John Keatinge
 * Articles for deletion/Tim Raphael
 * Articles for deletion/Thomas Tuttebury
 * Articles for deletion/Thomas de Bodham
 * Articles for deletion/Wandlyn Snelgrove
 * Articles for deletion/Joseph Verschoyle
 * Articles for deletion/Charles Wolfe (priest)
 * Articles for deletion/Peter Wall (priest)
 * Articles for deletion/Frederick Falkiner Goold
 * Articles for deletion/Gordon Kuhrt
 * Articles for deletion/Clifford Lacey

Bashereyre (talk) 10:21, 21 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Archdeacon of Bournemouth. Keeping or deleting isn't based on how many articles we have on a subject, otherwise one simply needed to make sure to pass some arbitrary threshold to be kept ad aeternum. As can be seen from the previous discussions, some are kept, some are deleted, and some are merged or redirected, depending on the actual coverage available for each individual. This is one of a series of mass-created archdeacon articles of very poor quality, with (as with many of the archdeacon and bishop articles by the same editor) lots of errors, inaccuracies, ... in many of them. E.g. for this one, we have a date of death of 1 February 1572, sourced to a page that lists him as "dead by 10 May 1572", and where another source in the article lists him as "died 1571". He is supposedly installed as archdeacon on 21 March 1554, even though the same two sources say "12 March 1554" and "1555". The third, unlinked and rather cryptic source, is probably this, which doesn't really help us much further with the above (natural death: 1/6/1572 gives us yet another date, and yet again not the one in the article). Looking for further sources gives us only further confusion but no significant coverage. Unless better coverage is unearthed, this looks to be someone failing WP:BIO, and the article should be deleted or redirected to a list of archdeacons (considering the dubious information in it, I don't support any actual merging). Fram (talk) 15:39, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:26, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:26, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:26, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Keep, Charles Matthews has amply demonstrated notability. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:31, 29 June 2021 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * For context: "By March 1554 Philpott had been deprived as archdeacon, excommunicated, and placed in the king's bench prison." (ODNB) That is John Philpot, Cheston's predecessor as archdeacon. "On 18 December 1555 the authorities conveyed Philpott to Smithfield to be burnt." Cheston is perhaps not a major figure of the reign of Mary I of England, but later in Elizabeth I's reign, Robert Horne as bishop of Winchester tried to get rid of him as archdeacon, in 1564 (ODNB) - no success there, and Cheston kept his place until 1572. These things should be in Wikipedia, and incidentally throw light onto the date issues raised above. I don't think the article should simply be redirected. Charles Matthews (talk) 10:59, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep: In line with what I wrote above, Cheston's historical role is clear enough, and there are references. I have expanded the article. (Some points on dates raised by Fram are to do with New Style issues that go on until the 18th century, while some may be valid concerns though "collation" is not the same as "installation". In any case such things are not what AfD is here to decide.) Charles Matthews (talk) 11:53, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * There doesn't seem to be any reference at all which gives more than very passing attention to Cheston, not even the PhD thesis about the Archdeacons gives him real attention. If in 400+ years time, no one has felt the need to write more than one or two lines about a subject, it is hard to defend that it is a notable subject surely? We don't even know his date of death, even though the article still firmly states it as "1 February 1572" in two places. Fram (talk) 07:42, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The date of death is in the CCEd reference: the use of 1571, as I pointed out, may well be because Julian calendar dates in the first few months of the year are now considered like 1571-2, in 1571 Old Style and 1572 New Style. In any case CCEd dates, correctly interpreted, are based on primary sources, so that is a reliable, scholarly source. I don't know whether you are able to read the ODNB source (it is easy in the UK, and Wikipedia Library has accounts). The fact is that there is a real story here about nepotism by a strongly Catholic bishop of Winchester, Gardiner, who had the previous archdeacon burned, and brought in a family connection from his home town. (There is no clear evidence that Cheston was a priest at this point: he was probably a lawyer.) A subsequent strongly Protestant bishop, Horne, tried to get rid of Cheston as archdeacon. He failed, because his officials didn't really co-operate. Most people would see that there is a story here. ( is Gardiner's will, by the way. There are a couple of local history papers on JSTOR about Gardiner and the Cheston family.) The family name is also spelled Chesten or Chesteyn, and maybe other ways too. So further research would be needed to claim there isn't more to find here. Charles Matthews (talk) 08:35, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Originator The stub of a archdeacon of this vintage seems worth keeping. When I started on Wikipedia in 2007 there weren't half, nay a quarter, of the digitised books and manuscripts there are now. I've always intended being cremated but am tempted to change this so I can have on my tombstone "Anglican Deans and Archdeacons are notable by office" Although, to contradict myself I was once looking at an Anglican diocese in Canada. I clicked on the staff page and second down was Bishop's Archdeacon. This was a curate with two years experience who was what most Anglicans call Chaplain, which was traditionally a secretarial role. So what do I know?Bashereyre (talk) 14:00, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep now article has been extended and improved. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 09:41, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 23:34, 2 July 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.