Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Walter de Washington


 * 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. Consensus is clear: delete. A highly combative set of "keep" comments by the article creator do not convince any of the other participants; the other "keep" vote puts all its eggs in the basket of one entry in one book. Drmies (talk) 01:46, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

William de Washington

 * – ( View AfD View log )

PROD with the rational "Does not inherit notability from George Washington, only coverage I found was in genealogies, and it isn't sigcov of him." contested by article creator with the reasoning "No reasonable explanation for proposed deletion." I dispute that assertation-- there's no reasonable answer I've seen as to why this article meets GNG or a relevant SNG. Eddie891 Talk Work 16:51, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone  17:41, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone  17:41, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone  17:41, 31 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete - Wikipedia is not genealogy, not even George Washington's genealogy. Notability is not hereditary, and I can see no serious argument that de Washington is notable independent of his relationship to the President. While I suppose one could argue for a merge and redirect to Washington family, it would still be WP:UNDUE since there are zero references to de Washington in reliable (i.e. non-genealogical) sources. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:21, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I have, as requested, taken a second look at the article, and my opinion remains the same. As far as I can tell, none of the non-genealogical sites reference Walter de Washington at all, so they do not provide a basis for asserting notability. The article should be deleted. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:43, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Although I don't consider it necessary, I expressly reaffirm my previous !vote of "delete", for substantially the reasons explained by Agricolae. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:45, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete - Even in genealogical sources I am not finding significant coverage, and by their nature, genealogical sources are not an indication of notability. Sole current claim to notability flies in the face of WP:NOTINHERITED. Agricolae (talk) 21:55, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete - clear delete because of WP:NOTINHERITED; no other assertion of notability; not even worth merging with Battle of Lewes Spiderone  22:43, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Having reviewed the article, my stance is still in favour of deletion. Merge as a last resort. Spiderone  21:54, 5 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Since this dispute was started I have added to the article. Walter de Washington is notable for having made significant improvements to Washington Old Hall, Having fought and died for the rebels at the battle of Lewes, and being the ancestor of George washington. Furthermore he is an important part of both American and British heritage. Seeing as how I have added to the article I recommend you all take a second look at it. --Tgec17 (talk) 23:30, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * In response to User:Extraordinary Writ if you read some of those sources you would know that Washington Old hall had improvements in the middle of the 13th century, the same time Walter de Washington was lord of the manor, so even though it doesn't mention his name it is implied; you would have to be a fool not to see it.--Tgec17 (talk) 23:50, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Looking through sources 5-8 there's not a single mention of Walter de Washington, and because not a single one of those sources make the connection, it's original research to do so-- and that doesn't mean we're fools, just that we are following policy. They are even less than passing mentions, more like passing implications-- still not establishing notability. Eddie891 Talk Work 23:57, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I disagree I think there is plenty of evidence for notability. The man turned what was once an insignificant manor into a manor fit for a king to stay at for a night. His work on the manor can still be seen to this day and it should not be treated in such a dismissive manner. When someone does something which if changed could change the course of history it is notable. Had Walter not expanded Washington old Hall who knows if George Washington would ever have lived? The family could have died out and without George Washington's leadership perhaps the British would have won the Revolutionary war... it is very important and is certainly notable. --Tgec17 (talk) 00:03, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Not even close. Refs 1-4 are all worthless from a Wikipedia standpoint - self-published and crowdsourced online genealogies are non-WP:RS, and provide no indication of notability.  With no bibliographical information, Ref. 6 is hard to call WP:RS, but a 1-sentence entry in a genealogical table is not significant coverage anyhow, and it doesn't say what it is being cited to support.  Refs. 7, 9 & 10 say nothing about Walter de Washington whatsoever, nor does Ref. 8, which is improperly cited - the Wayback Machine is not a source, it is a host: the defunct web page it hosts is the source.   Ref. 5 is just a trainwreck. The URL given is non-existent, the title referred to in the text is different than the title given in the footnote, it gives neither the volume nor page number, and the publisher listed did not exist at the time the books was published. I have been unable to identify the specific passage referred to, but even if accurately portrayed, appearing in a list of battle casualties does not make one notable.  Taken together, these references are a whole lot of smoke, but no fire. There is no there there. Agricolae (talk) 03:50, 1 January 2021 (UTC)


 * The point is that there is research available to to support Walter de Washington's notability but I simply have not had time to access them. I ask for more time to do so. --Tgec17 (talk) 06:16, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * How do you know this 'available research' supports his notability if you haven't had time to access it? Nothing you have provided thus far gives the least indication of notability. Agricolae (talk) 06:51, 1 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep There's an entry for the subject in Burke's Presidential Families of the United States of America by Hugh Massingberd and this contains dates and details such as the subject's wife. Naturally, accounts of such an ancient knight are sketchy but, as there is clearly interest and documentation, deletion is not appropriate.  The worst case would be merger to Washington family,  Our policy WP:ATD applies, "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." Andrew🐉(talk) 10:57, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * There is not 'an entry' on Walter in this book. There is an entry on the Washington patrilineage that includes a grand total of one run on sentence: "" followed by a similar rudimentary account for the next generation, and the one after that. . . . This is not substantial coverage, nor does it contribute to establishing notability because the sole criterion for mention in this work has nothing whatsoever to do with the subject himself, only the electoral fortunes of remote descendants. Agricolae (talk) 15:09, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The entry is WP:SIGCOV in my view because it contains several facts and seems reasonably reliable and independent. The overall coverage clearly indicates that WP:LISTN is passed and so deletion is inappropriate.  My !vote stands. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:01, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * We clearly disagree over the meaning of "significant coverage", but LISTN? A policy for stand-alone lists is relevant . . . . how? Agricolae (talk) 11:28, 3 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Merge (if there is anything worth merging); otherwise just redirect to Washington Old Hall. All appropriate information can be given in that article.  I am not suggesting that Massingberd is not accurate, merely that this person is NN and we probably know no more about him than the quote in green by Agricolae.  Peterkingiron (talk) 17:38, 1 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep - whole article has been revamped and should stand up to any scrutiny. All delete suggestions are no longer valid until those who advocated for delete have read the new article. --Tgec17 (talk) 07:43, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - this is now officially a trainwreck. User:Tgec17 has arbitrarily decided that the man's name was different, claiming 'New evidence has come to light that the name of the knight was William'.  This 'new evidence' is a book from 1879, so here 'new' is a relative term.  The change in name is also directly contradicted by the closest this article gets to reliable sources, the Burke's Presidential Families book and the newly added The American Genealogist article, again miscited, which like Burke's is yet again a single-sentence mention of Walter - yes Walter not William - in a genealogical publication only interested in following the patrilineage.  The 1879 book is self-published, non-scholarly non-WP:RS genealogy of the worst sort, yet is now serving as the core source for the whole article.  Other changes include a rather substantial set of WP:OR conclusions, while the recasting of other sentences makes it appear sources say things they do not.  Before it was a reasonable summary of a non-notable individual.  Now it is a complete jumble of unreliable, dated, erroneous, trivial and made up information.  Now it definitely needs to be deleted because it is too much of a mess to sort out. Agricolae (talk) 13:54, 2 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Ok so first of all I didn't "decide" it was different. Second of all the book is published by Repressed Publishing; Reprint edition (January 1, 2015). I dont really think you know what you're talking about at all. None of the information is made up. You should stop your slanderous comments. Additionally you have yet to prove a single reason why it should be deleted, the only thing you've proven is that it now has reliable sources. You say "dated" like its an issue that changes. It is not. Historical information rarely changes especially on so obscure a topic- in this case the older version is actually more reliable as it was closer to the time. I think its time for you to admit defeat. --Tgec17 (talk) 14:21, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Wow. . . . .just, wow! This is wrong on so many levels. Agricolae (talk) 15:24, 2 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Care to explain Agricolae? I have two published reliable sources supporting the article, so no I didn't "make up" anything. Furthermore one of my sources "The History and Antiquities of the County Palatine of Durham" is described as "This work has been selected by scholars as being culturally important and is part of the knowledge base of civilization as we know it." It is also written by Robert Surtees a famous author with a spotless record who spent his life working on this book. On the other hand Burke's peerage was edited by Hugh Massingberd something of an oddball who according to the daily telegraph "one friend told him, "you are in urgent need of psychiatric help."" With a man so Eccentric having edited 30 books in his short career it is no surprise that he would have made a small mistake such as replacing William with Walter. Your disparaging claims about my sources have no proof and are contradicted every step of the way. Both of my sources are strong solid secondary sources and I have yet to see you prove that they have a single issue. Finally I have no reason to believe that Burke's is any more of a reliable source and considering there are two earlier sources which contradict it, and Burke's covers the lineage of 37 different families over ~800 years I will trust the older sources (as most would). P.S if you think that the sources are "improperly cited" why don't you help out and cite them properly? --Tgec17 (talk) 16:25, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * ((edit conflict)) You asked. 1) You had two modern WP:RS sources that called him Walter, but when you found one source from 1879 that called him William, you made the decision that the 1879 source was the one to follow, and thus 'decided' to rename the page to call him William, in direct contradiction of the only reliable sources you had.  2) The book was reprinted by Repressed Publishing - they made no intellectual contribution whatsoever, they simply lifted the images from Google Books, printed and sold them to suckers who didn't realize it was available for free online. They did not provide any evaluation for accuracy or noteworthiness.  As the title page clearly shows, this is an 1879 publication.  3) Your thoughts on whether I know what I am talking about carry little weight given that you seemingly don't know the difference between a Google-Book mill and an actual publisher.  4) You have no source for:  and the very way you are expressing it makes it clear it is your own conclusions - you made it up.   This is explicitly your own conclusions, neither of your sources attributing the actions to 'William' (or Walter) - you made it up.  5) as such, there is no slander in pointing out that the article contains conclusions not found in the source. 6) 'Proof' is not really the standard, but the lack of significant coverage in any reliable source, as I have pointed out, deprives the subject of WP:Notability, which is the standard. 7) The article does have reliable sources (the Washington book is not one of them), but that is beside the point. None of the reliable sources demonstrate notability, given that they are either genealogical in nature and hence do not have criteria for inclusion that indicates personal notability (plus each of them only dedicates a single sentence to him), or they don't name the person at all.  8) 'Dated' is a real thing, both in terms of quality and focus. The entire approach to so-called scholarship among the vast majority of 19th century genealogists and antiquarians was laughable.  Even many of the 'better scholars' couldn't resist making things up to connect the dots they wanted to connect.  Modern scholarship bears almost no resemblance to this 19th century approach to ancestor-collecting.  Further, the sensibilities are completely different - in the 19th century, women, minorities, poor, etc. were all marginalized, while their status-hungry mindset made it critically important to determine who the closest royal relative of the subject was.  Modern scholarship takes a different view on all these issues.  9) Historical information never changes, by definition.  What we think we know about it can change dramatically, both through the discovery of new information among the vast amounts of primary records made available in the intervening 140 years, and also in unmasking the confusion and outright fraud of former authors. If there is no modern work on the subject, that doesn't mean we should use old work, it means the topic is probably not notable.  10) The claim that 'older sources are better because they are closer in time to the events they are describing' represents a fundamental misunderstanding of what makes historical writing reliable.  We are not talking about something written within a hundred years of the events being described, when the events described still be within the historical memory of living people (who would have heard about it from first-hand witnesses) -  we are talking about something written 600 years later, at a time before modern source-based genealogical research came to be appreciated, supposedly being better than something written 750 years later with all the tools of modern historical research.  The former is not better - genealogies from the 17th to the 19th centuries are the absolute worst in terms of reliability. And last but not least 11) 'admit defeat' is completely inappropriate WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality.    So, other than absolutely everything you said, your contribution was spot on. Agricolae (talk) 17:18, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * ((Added note in response to additional comment)) Ormerod is being used to document that the name appears in a list. Massingberd dedicates all of one sentence to the subject.  Their reliability is thus irrelevant as neither provides the "significant" coverage that demonstrates notability. Agricolae (talk) 17:18, 2 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Please calm down Agricolae this is not a battleground. You said that my thoughts about you carry little weight demonstrate and this demonstrates a battleground mindset a clear violation of our policies here at wikipedia. When I say I don't think you know what you're talking about, I really mean it. When I asked you to admit defeat I was only trying to save you time and energy which I'm sure could be spent in far more productive ways than attempting to delete a Wikipedia article about a notable person backed by reliable sources. I'm sorry you interrupted it as challenge or an insult, that was not my intention. I hope you were not trying to insult me when you used the word trainwreck twice because some would see it as an insult. You claim I had two modern sources. But the only source I had which wasn't from a genealogical website (which you so thoroughly attacked as being unreliable) was Burke's. I have two older sources which are more reliable and they both use William instead of Walter. As far as "notability" if you read the article you will see there is plenty to provide notability; you would have a very difficult job proving it wasn't notable without bringing your own personal bias's into play. The fact that Massingberd only mentioned in with one sentence has no effect on the other sources that were used. Again I fail to see any evidence of your claims that 17th century 19th century sources were "the absolute worst in terms of reliability. One major reason why earlier sources can be more reliable is because things are usually written down on paper and paper usually does not last very long. So the closer you go back to the time period the more likely it is that there was a surviving original paper from which the author got their information from. The use of older sources is completely valid and you have no basis for your argument. Both of the books I mentioned are reliable and we both know that. Basically please refrain from bringing your own personal bias's against 19th-18th century sources into this because you can't prove a thing. My reliable source say William held land from the bishop and fought with him at Lewes. Please refrain from accusing me of making stuff up because not only is it slanderous it also makes you look stupid and that's something neither of us want. I happen to know that if you hold a fief from someone and fight for them you are their vassal. Anyone with any basic knowledge on the middle ages knows that. It is a very simple conclusion to make. As far as I am aware it is allowed, and common, for wikipedia articles to say "this probably was the case" etc. so I dont know what your on about. I am honestly a little shocked at your attitude, your accusations, and your lack of proof for any of your claims. You seem to be trying to take some kind of morale high ground. If you really do have pure intentions why don't you help out with the article? I don't think you will. I think your opinion cannot be reasonably counted in this discussion because it slaps of personal bias against the sources which does not have a reasonable explanation. Furthermore I believe this disqualifies you from making comments on the notability because you appear to be not working for the best interests of Wikipedia, but out of some personal self-righteous mission. Heres a list of your unproven claims (actually come to think of it, every second sentence you make an unproven claim pretty much):


 * .They did not provide any evaluation for accuracy or noteworthiness
 * .Genealogies from the 17th to the 19th centuries are the absolute worst in terms of reliability.
 * .None of the reliable sources demonstrate notability
 * .If there is no modern work on the subject, that doesn't mean we should use old work, it means the topic is probably not notable.
 * ."confusion and outright fraud of former authors." No proof of fraud for the books I use.
 * --Tgec17 (talk) 18:11, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The conclusion is unchanged: There is not a single WP:RS that demonstrates notability. That was the case before you launched into this Dunning-Kruger wall-of-text and remains the case after. Agricolae (talk) 19:25, 2 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Incorrect Agricolae. Two sources conform to the general notability guideline, Albert Welles "The pedigree and history of the washington family..." and "The history and antiquities of the county palatine". These sources are both reliable, and provide information demonstrating the notability. It is notable that William had to pay the king money to marry Alicia de Lexington; it means he was reporting directly to the king thus making him notable.
 * Side note - fix your attitude no place for that here. I have plenty of things I want to say about you but I'm not because I'm being civil, I expect the same from you.
 * --Tgec17 (talk) 19:29, 2 January 2021 (UTC)


 * This is not a claim that improves through simple repetition. They are not both reliable, and neither demonstrates notability.  Welles is self-published, non-reliable 19th century genealogical schlock, not WP:RS - he gives the man the wrong name, that is how bad he is - and genealogies do not demonstrate notability as their only criteria for inclusion is genealogical relationship.  Hutchinson is at least attempting to be scholarly and historical rather than genealogical, but it is only being used to document that the name is found in a casualty list, which does absolutely nothing to demonstrate notability. "" That is patently false.  It means that Alice was ward of the king. It says nothing about Washington other than that he had the money to 'buy' the right to marry a propertied wife. This is why we leave 'what it means' to the sources, rather than deciding for ourselves based on what we think we know. Agricolae (talk) 19:57, 2 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I believe you're claims are the ones that are not worth repeating because they are false. William de Washington is called William de Washington by both authors firstly. Secondly I don't know what your issue is with Welles but his book is important enough that it continues to be published after several hundred years so you had best get used to that. In regards to the kings payment Actually that's not the only thing it proves. If you knew anything about the middle ages you would know that only men of high standing were allowed to negotiate directly with the king over wardships. You don't seem to understand that a wardship was not seen as property that could be "bought" or "sold" in any sense and I'm beginning to wonder why you think it is appropriate for you to provide commentary on this subject that you know so little about. The king of England was everyone in England's overlord and it was seen that when a child or woman's husband/father died the king was the natural custodian of both the heir and the estate. However such custodianship was expensive and it had to be "worth doing" for the king, hence the fees of wardship. In all my studies I know of not a single case where the king forced a widow to marry against her will- I'm sure it happened at least once but it certainly was not the norm. The fact that this piece of information survives over 800 years does indeed make it a notable piece of information which when combined with all the other information makes the article notable. Whichever way you cut it the fact remains that Hutchinson's book is indisputably a reliable source which provides notable information. William de Washington is an intriguing story of a lesser feudal lord from the Durham Palatineship who marries a rich heiress, (probably) builds up his manorhouse, and then fights for the bishop and the king at the battle of Lewes. Sure its a simple story without much detail but its a true story nonetheless and it deserves its own article for many reasons but primarily because it gives an example of the life of a lesser Durham knight in the middle of the 13th century, something which, so far as I am aware, has not yet been written about on wikipedia and should be. --Tgec17 (talk) 20:03, 2 January 2021 (UTC)


 * This is getting really tedious. Reprinting of images taken off of Google Books means absolutely nothing with regard to one name on one page.  Notability has a specific definition on Wikipedia:  Giving a list that includes the subject's name is not significant coverage; a whole sentence, like in Burke's and Washington's TAG article, is not significant coverage, and Welles is worthless. As to your supposed superior knowledge about the medieval society, you continue to miss the point. Any argument based on 'he is notable because of what I know that you don't about medieval society' is completely misplaced - significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources is what matters.  Agricolae (talk) 20:32, 2 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I think you are the one who is missing the point here. He does have significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Another source the peer reviewed journal The American Geneaologist mentions him too. --Tgec17 (talk) 20:44, 2 January 2021 (UTC)


 * A name in a list ≠ significant coverage, and that is all that Hutchinson gives him (or at least all the source is used for), and a single sentence ≠ significant coverage, and that is all Burke's gives him, and that is all the Washington TAG article gives him, and Welles is rubush, and self-published genealogical web sites are even worse, and the Washington Hall sources don't name him at all. That is all we have and you don't get to 'significant coverage in multiple reliable sources' by combining some reliable sources that don't give significant coverage with other sources that are unreliable, and a third batch that ignore him entirely. Agricolae (talk) 21:19, 2 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Another reliable source has been added "The Earliest Washingtons and their Anglo-Scottish Connections (1964)" which provides plenty of notable information :). Other reliable sources providing notable details about this knight: English Episcopal Acta: Durham, 1153-1195 (1980, Pub. British Academy), The American Genealogist (1970, peer reviewed journal), "The story of Washington Old Hall's thousand year history – and its (slightly tenuous) American connection", Burke's Colonial Gentry (Many publications),  The history and antiquities of the county palatine of Durham (1732-1814), The Castle Howell School Record, Comprising a List of Pupils from the Beginning, Papers on the Origin, Name and Changes (1888 Originally Harvard University). Thats eight solid sources providing notable information. Is everyone ready to close this deletion post down? I would like anyone who opted to Delete the article to re-read it please it is much better now. --Tgec17 (talk) 21:46, 2 January 2021 (UTC)


 * That 'new source' (again miscited) is not independent of the miscited TAG article, written by the same author - for notability the multiple sources have to be independent of each other. (Plus even without being able to see it I can tell it has been erroneously summarized, because the information you have attributed it in different parts of the article is contradictory.)  English Episcopal Acts is the very definition of a passing mention, which doesn't qualify, the TAG article has a single sentence in a genealogical context, The Story of Washington Hall doesn't even name the subject, Burke's Colonial Gentry doesn't name the subject at all but Burke's Presidential Families appears to be the intended source and it has just a single sentence in a genealogical context, the county palatinate of Durham source is used to document that a name appears in a list of names that is nowhere close to significant coverage, The Castle Howell School Record doesn't name the subject at all  only says int he text that a person of the name was at Lewes in its text, just a chart .  So, the grand total is, maybe, one reliable independent secondary source that may have more than passing mention (Washington), and that is in a  genealogical context that conveys no presumption of notability.  Again, there is no there there. Agricolae (talk) 00:03, 3 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Ok so you clearly didn't check any of the citations why don't you go back and actually check them. And if you think they are not cited correctly, fix them. There is far more than a passing mention in these reliable sources do not be dishonest. I don't want to have to bring up quotes because I don't want to embarrass you but I will if I have to. What I have right now is a solid Wikipedia article backed by at least 5 reliable sources which all give notability and which provides a biography about a knight who lived 800 years ago. I think you're done here. Although you had some valid points along the way there is now no way one could possibly say that the article does not have notable details without lying through their teeth. With respect I think we would all like to hear from some different people rather than hearing you regurgitate the same false claims over and over again. --Tgec17 (talk) 00:21, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I didn't say "the article does not have notable details". 'Notable details' isn't even a thing.  Notability is about the article subject, and doesn't arise from simply citing every passing mention found. As has been explained in detail, none of your sources are really on.  Of the list you gave above, which I presume to be your best effort at demonstrating notability, the two books that give detailed coverage both are self-published and one is completely unscholarly.  Three give a single sentence, one of which just refers to 'a William' and the other two aren't even giving the man the right name (or are they). One source has two sentences, one summarizing a transaction in the collection of primary documents but not really about the subject himself, and the other simply contextualizing someone else as 'father of William'.  One apparently lists the person among battle participants but doesn't make them subject of a single sentence, and one doesn't name him at all.  This is not what constitutes notability, a person only of substantial interest to genealogists systematically tracing every member of the Washington family. The only 'regurgitated false claims' here are the ones trying to turn this very poor record of documentation into notability.  As to what 'we would all like', unless you have a squirrel in your pocket or multiple personality disorder, you are speaking only for yourself here. Agricolae (talk) 09:30, 3 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Merge to Washington family/Old Washington Hall. A lot of this article is not biographical details about William himself. "The Earliest Washingtons" describes several ancestors without necessarily establishing the need for separate articles, only showing he was one of many distant ancestors. Reywas92Talk 21:18, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Agricolae... I have never met anyone like you before. First of all please cease your insulting tone. Second of all I think we've all heard enough from you and I maintain that based on your rude tone, useless misrepresentation of the facts, and general unproductiveness you should probably leave Wikipedia for a while and come back once you've cooled down. Frankly based on your attitude and your general unreliability I don't think you are in any position to judge if a source is scholarly or not. Since you continue to fail to acknowledge there is notability I will now have to take quotations.

We'll start with The earliest Washingtons and their Anglo-Scottish Connections from the the University of Wisconsin 1964:

"Moreover, the fact the the lord of Washington was charged 6 marks for the common aid (although one mark normally sufficed for the vill of Washington) affords contemporary proof of the importance of the family's Durham Holdings. (Rotuli Litterarum Clausarum, vol. II p. 179) (The earliest... p. 6)

In 1227 the lord of the manor of Washington was William de Washington so the fact that he was being charged 6 times his due from the bishop of Durham in common aid suggests notability.

"Walter himself however died quite early without issue: and in 1211 his brother William de Washington (Junior), his younger brother and successor, gave sixty marks and two palfreys in Durham to King John to marry Alice (Than a ward of the crown), the wealthy widow of a Nottinghamshire knight, Sir John de Lexington, Kinsman and namesake of Henry III's famous judge (Pipe rolls of Cumbd. Westd. and Durham, p 211) (note 6)."

Again clear Evidence of notability... we continue.

"The close rolls reveal this William as lord of Washington in 1227 (he is presumably the 'William de Wessent' whose name was inscribed by a 13th century hand in the Durham Liber Vitae); and in 1237-1239 he attested a charter at newcastle in company with Brian Fitz Alan of Bedale then Sherriff of Northumberland (Rotuli Litterum Clasarum, vol. II, pg 179; Priory of Finchale, Surtees Soc., p. 82).

We move on to English Episcopal Acta; Durham, 1153-1195 "Mention of a charter in a royal mandate of 1227 forbidding the exaction of six marks tallage in respect of Washington from William de Washington "contra tenorem carte sue quam inspeximus". William having shown that he holds the vill for 4 pounds a year and is liable for no more than one mark a year in aid." (59 of English Episcopal Acta: Durham...)

This is significant because it means that William had enough political power to get the king to interfere in his feudal contract with the bishop of Durham. It is also extensive coverage.

Finally The Castle Howell School Record Fb&c Limited published and many other publishers...(yes agricolae you were wrong either intentionally or through your own incompetance you missed it, the Castle Howell School Record does mention William de Washington, more than once!);

"There was a William de Washington at the battle of Lewes..." p. 196.

"William de Washington of Wessington of Washington, Co. Durham, of the Bishop, 11 Henry III [1226]. He was at the battle of Lewes" 192

More proof of extensive coverage. Agricolae I'm losing my patience with you and quite honestly I don't know anyone who wouldn't be. Since Argricolae has trouble understanding simple facts I will now illustrate clearly to everyone that this article has notability;

There is significant coverage on it. Details are there with no independent research. It is more than just a trivial mention but it is not the main topic of the source.

These sources are reliable. Many of them were published over 50 years ago by scholars from universities. The word published derives from the Latin word meaning to make known publicly according to wikipedia. This information has been made public for over 50 years and is generally accepted by the scholarly community.

The sources are secondary but also cite primary sources.

The work's are independent of the subject; there is no advertising, autobiographies, press release, or questionable websites.

Finally the significant coverage in the sources mean that it is presumed it should have its own article.

I am done speaking to Agricolae, someone else please save me.


 * On Wikipedia, notability derives from policy, not Latin. A single genealogical source (not indicative of notability because genealogies dig out as much information as they can find, however trivial, on everyone in the lineage), plus a bunch of sources that each give single-sentence passing mention, which you choose to overinterpret into equating to notability is not actually notability just because you declare adamantly that it is and insult anyone who challenges your conclusion. Oh, and if you are going to accuse someone of incompetence: 1) you might want to carefully read what they wrote so as not to falsely accuse them based on your own misreading - I intentionally wrote in the text to exclude the second mention in the accompanying genealogical chart and hence not in the text, and 2) you might want to spell incompetence correctly, so as not to cut into your moral authority in leveling the insult. Agricolae (talk) 20:31, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

First of all there is a line in the text on page 196... second of all don't try to use technicalities like that in a dishonest way. Thirdly you seem to have completely misunderstood what I was saying about the Latin definition of published. Basically that is the definition Wikipedia uses of published. The sources I use are reliable and published, I really don't know what your issue is but I strongly believe that your strange devotion to deleting the article, your false accusations, your complete disregard for the citations, your failure to even look at the citations, your reliance on strange technicalities of speech, your snide comments, and your petty insults disqualify you from judging anything related to this article especially the reliability of the sources. I believe this also invalidates anyone who simply opts to delete based on your laughable and dishonest conclusions. I've already explained how it is notable and I am not going to do it again, I think we should hear from some different people your not saying anything new or productive, simply restating your opinion. Finally I want to make it ABSOLUTELY CLEAR that the only persons who have opted to delete the article since it had been massively updated are Ealdgyth and Agricolae. The article has changed radically since than and the other users interpretations of the article are from the ORIGINAL article which is far different than the current one. The article currently has more than enough notable information from multiple different sources to warrant its own article and we have yet to hear from anyone a second time except for the same single person who keeps commenting repeatedly in a strangely devoted, rude, and unprofessional way including a snide remark in almost every comment in a way which strongly indicates a battle ground attitude. --Tgec17 (talk) 01:29, 4 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete or merge to Washington family. There is not enough to support him having a stand-alone article, few sentences here and there. But some of this content - the parts that are referenced and did not fail verification - may be of use. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 09:33, 2 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I disagree if you read the article you will see there is plenty of information to warrant its own article so much so that if it were to be merged it would most likely lose much important information.--Tgec17 (talk) 13:42, 2 January 2021 (UTC)


 * delete per Argricolae. Ealdgyth (talk) 22:15, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete this is a very egregious violation of our not geneaology guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:48, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete clearly not notable. A redirect to Washington family is problematic, due to the now confusion of whether this was William or Walter. The page move during an AfD was ill-advised at best.  Onel 5969  TT me 03:45, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Its William. No problem. Furthermore according to the Wikipedia guidelines if the article in question has valid facts that can be merged with an article this is preferable and the article in question should not be deleted. This article has valid facts that are historically important and making this information available to Wikipedia users is a commendable thing to do- in other words the facts have merit. Now the question is would you be able to merge the articles together and not lose any important information from this article? I think you will find the answer to be no, you cannot without making the Washington family article into a strange mix of two articles where you have some general information about the Washington family and then you have a personal biography of a single member of the family. Therefore I believe that this article must stay its own article because the very fact that there is too much information to merge into another article proves that the topic is notable. Despite some users attempts to disparage the sources, the sources remain reliable sources which provide a great wealth of information about the topic which allows for notability. Some accusations of "sources not agreeing with each other" namely the one specific case where 18th and 19th century scholars believe William to have fought at the battle of Lewes whereas 20th and 21st believe his son to have fought there does nothing to suggest that the sources are unreliable. because it comes from the interpretation of a word "Wautier" by different scholars from different times periods. The reason this does not discredit either scholar is because neither scholar can prove his claims are true. The presentation of these two different views actually shows that the topic is important enough that it has been in discussion for hundreds of years and people have different opinions about it which actually contributes to notability. Furthermore any user claiming to give an opinion on this topic should be an active participant in the conversation or else they are unproductive and their opinions are not constructive criticism but rather a passing whim of blind generalization. Since almost all of the users who voted to delete this page have only commented once and have not been active participants in this conversation I do not think it is productive or rational to give their opinions much if any weight on the topic, especially when considering many of them have not checked on the page since they made their original comment and it has changed dramatically. --Tgec17 (talk) 21:08, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete - Lacks WP:SIGCOV from WP:RS., everyone's vote counts. Your changes have not changed anything viz notability, and the only person behaving in an inappropriate way here is you. See WP:BLUDGEON. 174.212.222.105 (talk) 21:57, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete or Redirect: Lacks SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. N is NOTINHERITED from family and WP is NOTGENEOLOGY. I don't see anything worth merging here, but if someone wanted to write a brief paragraph with souces for Washington Family a redirect would be reasonable.  // Timothy ::  talk  23:47, 9 January 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.