Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Fitsrogo: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
m Listing on WP:DELSORT
Line 24: Line 24:
:<small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Christianity|list of Christianity-related deletion discussions]]. [[User:Gene93k|• Gene93k]] ([[User talk:Gene93k|talk]]) 13:24, 20 October 2012 (UTC)</small>
:<small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Christianity|list of Christianity-related deletion discussions]]. [[User:Gene93k|• Gene93k]] ([[User talk:Gene93k|talk]]) 13:24, 20 October 2012 (UTC)</small>
:<small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/People|list of People-related deletion discussions]]. [[User:Gene93k|• Gene93k]] ([[User talk:Gene93k|talk]]) 13:24, 20 October 2012 (UTC)</small>
:<small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/People|list of People-related deletion discussions]]. [[User:Gene93k|• Gene93k]] ([[User talk:Gene93k|talk]]) 13:24, 20 October 2012 (UTC)</small>
:<small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/England|list of England-related deletion discussions]]. [[User:Necrothesp|Necrothesp]] ([[User talk:Necrothesp|talk]]) 13:39, 20 October 2012 (UTC)</small>

Revision as of 13:39, 20 October 2012

William Fitsrogo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Appears to fail WP:NBIO and WP:GNG. GBooks search produces 5 hits, none of which are significant coverage as far as I can see. This merely verifies that he was Archdeacon of Barnstaple. Google web search returns mostly Wikipedia and its mirrors. Other searches return nothing. !Voters may wish to search for William Fitzrogo as an alternate spelling. Unless the position of archdeacon confers notability (and I don't see why it would), I see no reason to keep this. Quasihuman (talk • contribs) 10:46, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kommentar: WP:V does not require that references are readily and immediately verifiable by anyone through the internet. Europe is very rich in history and the institution cited is a very well established university. For people who became notable through modern technology is expected to have great internet accessible verifiability, but I wouldn't expect the same for historical figure from 1300s that maybe notable. WP:GOOGLEHITS go over these points.
But WP:GNG does require that there be multiple sources which cover the topic in significant detail, these are absent here. If you have access to such sources by all means add them. I can only search the resources to which I have access. Quasihuman (talk • contribs) 12:11, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
reply yes, they do, however the credible source, University of London's site includes a citation to non-electronic resource including page number. Consulting that resource may provide additional answer. Lack of accessibility online is not a reason for deletion. Internet accessibility is not a requirement as stated in overview section in WP:RS Cantaloupe2 (talk) 13:52, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am not claiming that lack of sources available online equates to non-notability, I am claiming that I have performed WP:BEFORE to a level that would be expected of someone living in a different country than the subject. Quasihuman (talk • contribs) 18:32, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Archdeacon for a year? Not notable, as far as I'm concerned. Mangoe (talk) 13:28, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Archdeacon of Barnstaple which contains as much information as there is on William Fitsrogo. British History Online cites Bishop Stapleton's register, p188, and while it's nice to assume this is a prolix and colourful biography of Fitsrogo, it's better to actually look up the reference, which is easily done online[1]. This source is clearly not sufficient for notability, with no information beyond date of office (note there's a discrepancy between Old Style and New Style dates). How many reliable sources will there be about someone who was in office in the early 15th century (decades before printing began in England), and who held a fairly minor office for a matter of months? At best, a name in a register here and there. If information miraculously appears, the article can be recreated, but right now there's no evidence of notability. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:30, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have had three similar articles proposed recently so...... please read these Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John_Plemth Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Tuttebury Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas de Bodham to see if it helps whether we should have a mass deletion of similar articles I think now would be the time to decide this once and for all Bashereyre (talk) 16:52, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:24, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:24, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:39, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]