Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Wedgwood III


 * 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 Darwin–Wedgwood family. Anything worth merging is available from the article history. Randykitty (talk) 20:55, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Thomas Wedgwood III

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not notable. Only claim to fame is being the father of a famous person, Josiah Wedgwood, (and two others who also have Wikipedia articles but whose fame is only because they were the brothers of Josiah Wedgwood). For the record and as a possible conflict of interest I am a descendant (but so are probably a few thousand others). Erp (talk) 05:53, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  ~Ruyaba~   {talk}  09:33, 8 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep as WP:INHERITED.   There are times, and these 18th century industrialist dynasties are examples, when someone can be notable even though most of this is on behalf of other members of the family.  The whole family is notable, as the multi-generational development of their family-owned business (which is certainly notable!). To omit one generation leaves us with a serious hole in the overall picture. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:20, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Merge. As Andy Dingley says it's the Wedgewood family that is notable, not each individual member of it.  My suggestion is that all the Wedgewood articles up for deletion here be merged into a single article about the family, which can both cover why the family matters, and briefly summarise the lives of individual members. Mccapra (talk) 13:29, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh, so this is another of those AfDs where it's a bulk AfD, but done silently without cross notifications? 8-(
 * I'm against merging. The borderline ones will be very thin articles, but they're just easier to manage as clear nodes within the namespace. Even if merged, we'd still keep them as redirects. That said, merging to the family article would still be better than deletion. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:34, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * There is already a Darwin–Wedgwood family article and I could see him mentioned there or in Josiah Wedgwood's own article (along with his two brothers Thomas Wedgwood IV and John Wedgwood (1721–67) who I also suggested for deletion, my apologies for not cross-linking them). I note that this Thomas Wedgwood was not a notable potter nor was his son Thomas and his son John's main importance separate from the other siblings was that he was murdered.  If anything, the Thomases, father and son, were rather unsuccessful  and the father died when Josiah was only 9 or 10. I also note that if you are trying to show how the previous generations (many of whom were also potters) connect are we going to include articles for all the individuals that connect Josiah Wedgwood to his wife and third cousin, Sarah Wedgwood?  --Erp (talk) 05:21, 9 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE. There are details of the various Wedgwoods in works such as Chaffers.  Andrew D. (talk) 16:18, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I would say that mention in Chaffers is not sufficient; his work was an attempt to list every maker (Marks And Monograms On Pottery And Porcelain: With Historical Notices Of Each Manufactory (1866)). I don't think Wikipedia should consider each and every manufactory of pottery to be significant enough for an article.  Note also that Thomas III and Thomas IV are one manufactory (Josiah started his own separate from his brother).  John Wedgwood wasn't even a potter. --Erp (talk) 17:48, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
 * It is our policy that "there is no practical limit to the number of topics Wikipedia can cover" and so there is no reason to arbitrarily limit our coverage of potters to those that Erp prefers.  My !vote stands. Andrew D. (talk) 12:27, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Lol..."this policy is not a free pass for inclusion: articles must abide by the appropriate content policies". This is a meta-reasoning (WP:EVERYTHING): Wikipedia merely being able to have article on anything doesn't mean it should. The content on the person may still be WP:PRESERVED in the family article rather than in a separate one. Reywas92Talk 08:23, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 00:40, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete Pretty barebones article with little information on the individual himself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:241:300:C930:D94:36F7:5D0D:60A5 (talk) 15:59, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 13:07, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 13:07, 17 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Rename and repurpose -- The Darwin-Wedgewood family article seems largely about the Darwin family, but bringing in a few relatives with other surnames. With several notable members of the Wedgewood family, mainly notable as connected with Josiah, there is a case for having a family article, dealing not only with Josiah's father and brothers, but with wider connections.  Peterkingiron (talk) 18:10, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete or Merge to existing Darwin-Wedgwood family or proposed Wedgwood family article. One way or the other, as an entirely genealogical article on a non-independently-notable person, this article as it stands should go away.  WP:NOTINHERITED, WP:NOTGENEALOGY. Agricolae (talk) 22:14, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete/Merge No evidence of notability beyond that simply inherited from the rest of the family. Darwin-Wedgwood family would be a fine place to merge any useful information, but he is not notable by himself. Reywas92Talk 08:12, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep or Merge WP:Not paper WP:Before not honored. 7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 18:05, 18 February 2019 (UTC) 13:55, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete- Notability is not inherited.--Rusf10 (talk) 00:08, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete - Josiah Wedgwood has been the subject of numerous biographies. An early biographer who wrote a two volume biography and a number of additional books is Eliza Meteyard. Based on her book, I think there is a good case the Josiah's brothers, Tom and John, are both suitably encyclopedic subjects for an article. Their lives and motivations are discussed in detail, and a good deal is known about them. You can see their entries in the book's index, here. I think there is a much weaker case for Josiah's father. In this and other early, public domain biographies of Josiah, all that is written about his father is based on his will, his date of death, and generalizations about potters and inhabitants from Burslem during that period. I am !voting on all three AfDs (that of John Wedgwood (1721–67), that of Thomas Wedgwood IV and that of Thomas Wedgwood III) with this comment, as I think they are similar enough. I am voting weakly because I think the best proof of the subjects being encyclopedic would come in actually improving the pages (based on Meteyard or other sources) and I do not have time to do the improving myself. Smmurphy(Talk) 17:18, 21 February 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.