Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Capet Clopton


 * 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:39, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

William Capet Clopton

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable biography trying to claim inherited notability, fails WP:GNG Joseph2302 (talk) 18:43, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Comment He was described by biographical collections   as a  lawyer, a judge  and a director of railroads and other major corporations.He was a noted collector of violins and his collection went to the US national museum in Washington, . There is a slight claim to notability beyond any appeal to be related to notable people. He likely still falls a bit short of WP:BIO. Edison (talk) 19:07, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  /wiae   /tlk  19:33, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions.  /wiae   /tlk  19:33, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions.  /wiae   /tlk  19:33, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 12:11, 1 March 2016 (UTC) Comment Actually,, something like that is going on here. An account created and/or plumped up numerous articles in order to build their family tree on Wikipedia, a sort of public significance by inheritance. And for what it's worth, I'd err on the side of exclusion; granted that coverage then was not what it is now, but if we operate under that assumption, then we're closer to giving a free pass to anyone who died more than 100 years ago. If the sources aren't there, then the bio doesn't belong. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:00, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. I agree that the sources, and notability, are thin here.  That being said, I tend to be a bit more inclusive when it comes to subjects who lived in an age when third party coverage was not as comprehensive as what we are used to today - and for whom additional coverage is likely never to be forthcoming.  Plus, you know, they're dead and long gone and it's not like there's a PR firm or shaky ego lurking somewhere behind this article, trying to pump up someone's notoriety (and thereby, income). — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnInDC (talk • contribs) 04:55, 3 March 2016 (UTC+9) ‎
 * I guess I am not too worried about a crush of new articles about obscure people who are more than a century dead. In any article, there would need to be some kind of sourcing, and some kind of indication of notability. Which we have here. I mean, the guy appears in a book called "Notable New Yorkers"!  It's not much, I agree, but it's not nothing either.  And the implication  of your argument – that the same standards of sourcing should apply to people from 100 or 300 years ago  as we require for contemporary figures –  builds a pretty substantial present day bias into the encyclopedia.  I don't feel too strongly about this, hence the "weak" qualifier – but I'm still leaning in that direction, in this case. JohnInDC (talk) 02:37, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree that the prospect of chronological bias is unfortunate, but there is a certain inevitability about it, in much the same way that all things fade with time--I expect after we're long gone something will usurp the internet, and this will be a more evanescent form of storage than we can imagine now. But to stay on point, I don't think we have much choice but to adhere to a uniform standard. While the article was created as part of the family tree being constructed here, I haven't argued for its deletion; color me merely skeptical. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:46, 3 March 2016 (UTC)


 * delete There is some hyperbole here ("orator of mark" and "became an immediate success" that is unsourced; other than it is pedestrian biographical detail.   WP is WP:NOTDIRECTORY.  Created by an editor doing a family geneaology per their disclosure and building that up in WP, including creating a category for their family. See articles listed at COIN. That is not what WP is for.  Jytdog (talk) 02:18, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. The material here is not reliable- he does not seem to have actually been a judge, and even if there were the sort of sources there are for people living in recent decades, his  career as a lawyer would not have made him notable.  DGG ( talk ) 21:52, 4 March 2016 (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.