Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Tuttebury


 * 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   keep. (non-admin closure)  TheSpecialUser TSU 01:09, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Thomas_Tuttebury
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

super short Ldorfman (talk) 14:38, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep as no valid argument for deletion has been made. Please see WP:STUB. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 14:57, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep It's a stub but it has references. I'm not sure we'll be able to expand an article on someone from the 15th century by much. Comment: Has a large number of links to it due to template:Deans of Wells. RJFJR (talk) 15:14, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * (I just noticed: the article was created today. RJFJR (talk) 15:15, 15 August 2012 (UTC))
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. 17:31, 15 August 2012 (UTC)  • Gene93k (talk) 17:31, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. 17:31, 15 August 2012 (UTC)  • Gene93k (talk) 17:31, 15 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep as a well-referenced article. Brevity is not a valid deletion criterion. -- 202.124.72.43 (talk) 06:41, 18 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment (moved here from Talk page, by Smalljim) When I started editing Wikipedia, I recall reading that deletionists should wait when a short article appeared as some editors build their articles between saves. Bashereyre (talk) 07:01, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Despite what he hints at, Bashereyre's editing record shows that he's far more interested in achieving a high article creation count than in expanding any of the thousands of stubs he's produced. It's only when they're threatened with deletion that he takes any significant action to build on them. However, a couple of previous AfDs suggested that the consensus view is that these stubs are a net benefit to WP, or at least do no harm. —S MALL  JIM   11:06, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Transferred from talk pageBoth Fasti Ecclesiae Anglicanae and The History of Buckingham have him dying in 1402 whilst possessed of the Archdeaconship of Buckingham. Either these two sources are erroneous or we need to take a closer look at the sources that have him acting after this date. I also note the source we give for the 1410 date of the end of his tenure as Dean of Wells actually has him as Dean only in the year 1400.--Pontificalibus (talk) 16:12, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. Wikipedia precedent seems to hold that the Deans of Wells are noteworthy. The article has plenty of references. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 16:36, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep -- Well referenced. We have list articles on most Deans and Archdeacons of the Church of England and its pre-reformation predecessor.  Peterkingiron (talk) 20:24, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Could this be two separate people?Bashereyre Bashereyre (talk) 16:34, 21 August 2012 (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.