Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Barton Wright


 * 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The result was Withdrawn with many thanks to User:Redrose64 for expanding and sourcing the article. Bosstopher (talk) 08:47, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

William Barton Wright

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No evidence of notability. Only two relevant JSTOR results. One is a primary source, the other only mentions him briefly. Google books results seem to mostly focus on his son and only a few results mention him in passing. Bosstopher (talk) 13:03, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, everything is about his son. Can't believe this has been around 10 years. —Мандичка YO 😜 14:15, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete no coverage in reliable sources that isn't simply about his son. Nwlaw63 (talk) 16:55, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 21 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Snow Keep and perhaps you should try to restrict yourself to commenting on things that you know about. Le petit fromage (talk) 06:17, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * If this is the case could you perhaps add a source or two to this article that's been unsourced for the past decade? This article could really do with improvement from someone knowledgeable in the field. Bosstopher (talk) 09:56, 22 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Uncertain because Books found some results (nothing that instantly looks good but considering this is a 19th century engineer) so some sources may not be accessible. Although it's been here for 10 years, this is much better than other articles that have been there that time because this is at least neat and sourced. SwisterTwister   talk  06:17, 23 May 2015 (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.