Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Dealtry

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. JohnCD (talk) 21:19, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

John Dealtry

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

CSD removed with the rationale that "the book about him establishes notability". I don't buy that, can find no trace of the work (although William Cooper is a pretty miserable name to punch into search engines) & doubt that it was more than an obit published as a pamphlet. Only substantial refereence is to the man's tomb. This may be notable, but I don't think the person is. TheLongTone (talk) 03:46, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sloppy work on my part, should have tried using the title of the workk, which, as Google books shows, is, as I supposed, a very short privately printed work, and in no way establishes notability,TheLongTone (talk) 03:55, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not much is known about him, that is true - but he is still remembered in York after 200 years - can that be said of other minor celebrities listed on Wikipedia? He wrote books, had a book written about him, re-built an important building (Judges' Lodgings) and is commemorated by a magnificent monument in York Minster.

I am sure there is a lot more - see e.g. [1] and [2]

¬¬¬¬

Have you actually read the "book"? As noted, it is no more than one would expect of a funeral oration. Twelve pages, of which four are text. It's a pamphlet, not a book.TheLongTone (talk) 12:17, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ This is an 18th Century figure with coverage in the 18th and 19th centuries. Writing about someone back then was a much bigger deal than it would be today and amounts to significant coverage. Add to that the sources are still extant today to show that coverage in these books is meaningful. Certainly there was enough significance to not tag for CSD. And sometimes quality of coverage is more important than volume. If there is enough to show notable achievements, then that suffices. If the article creator could add more sourcing, that would help a lot to keep the article. (Could someone do something with the formatting of this discussion. Hard to read.) Dloh cierekim 15:50, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Jb1944: there are claims of significance here that are not made in the article. It would be helpful to put them in the article with sourcing. You mention other claims of significance in the article. It would be helpful to elaborate and source there. Dloh cierekim 15:55, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:40, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:40, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:41, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:38, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‑Scottywong | chat _ 04:55, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Dealtry was a doctor in York, who left his widow enough money to erect a gsignificant tomb for him. That is not enough to make someone notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:44, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Switch to delete the notability claim was tenuous, and there has been no improvement in sourcing. The nice epitaph is not enough and I've changed my mind about the suitability of the book. Dloh cierekim 23:47, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.