Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Threston (surname)


 * 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 delete. Deor (talk) 13:48, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Threston (surname)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No real indication of why this surname merits an article John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:57, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: I'm not sure that surname pages need to be notable; they also act as navigational pages. (Of course, if there less than two notable bearers of surname there is no need for a navigational surname page—is that the case here?) הסרפד  (call me Hasirpad) 21:24, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Reply All but one of the linked articles therein were created by the same group of accounts and are currently under AfD discussion. -- Finngall   talk  21:49, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I am aware of that, but the jury is still out as to which, if any, are notable, so nominatiing the surname page for deletion is premature per my argument above. הסרפד  (call me Hasirpad) 00:00, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok, it could arguably have been premature, but anyway, the other articles are all deleted now. PhilKnight (talk) 21:33, 6 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete - there is only 1 name which isn't a hoax created by a sock farm. PhilKnight (talk) 12:59, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete per above & Mainly WikiDan61 - All created by a sock who prefers promoting non notable people. – Davey 2010 •  (talk)  13:39, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete: sock-farm product, obviously meant to raise relevance of T.R. Threston (article deleted), for more details please see: hereLagondaDK (talk) 14:45, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I think your comment of "completely made up or at least distorted the facts" is a good summary of what we are dealing with. PhilKnight (talk) 15:45, 1 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete As others have stated a "clutch of socks" (is there an "exaltation of larks" style description for socks?) at work here. Since these Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of AustralianThreston have been confirmed can the articles in question be speedied? If not no problems these AFDs will get them eventually. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 23:19, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete as an unreferenced BLP. Bearian (talk) 19:51, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Joseph T. Threston per WP:POFRED; the only surviving Threston article. הסרפד  (call me Hasirpad) 22:15, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd prefer to delete the page first, because of the concerns about hoax content. However, I certainly don't object to the creation of a redirect to Joseph T. Threston. PhilKnight (talk) 11:13, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Nor do I object to the current content being deleted. הסרפד  (call me Hasirpad) 16:57, 7 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete no significant coverage. fails WP:GNG, and per WikiDan61. However, some kind of a Threston dab page might be needed sometime in the future. --Bejnar (talk) 01:04, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * agreed. A site on that name makes only sense if there are more articles dealing with that name (redirect) and if there were more data on it. The original content of that site was taken from unreliable sources and have been brought up by a sock-farm. If there ever was sound intelligence on the topic: why not? The way it is now: nah ... don't need that! LagondaDK (talk) 10:48, 8 August 2014 (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.