Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sir Cecil Bisshopp, 10th Baronet (2nd nomination)
very well. Although the nom. has presented no valid deletion rationale, {{User|Debresser}} has done so, and thus I have considered this. I took a look at the previous deletion discussion and am persuaded by the previous nominator's argument. The subject was a clergyman and a baronet. He may have been an archdeacon, but this is unclear. Nevertheless only bishops are considered notable by virtue of their position alone. Likewise a baronet is not notable for being a baronet alone. The sources uncovered are all of a level and depth one would assume for a clergyman and baronet, but as the previous nominator noted, they do not establish notability for a biographical article. This subject does not meet . Arguments in the previous AfD failed to address this question of what specifically makes this clergyman/baronet notable. One of the previous arguments was that the page should be kept for now, and allowed to sit until September 2013 to see if it could be improved, and failing that it could come back to AfD. It is now 7.5 years beyond that deadline and the article is unimproved. Although deletion is not for cleanup, it is my view that it is not improved because there is nothing more to be said about the subject. He is not notable. He does not receive significant coverage in reliable sources, except for the reason that he was a baronet and clergyman
— User:Sirfurboy, 12:14, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
Stance: delete
Cited policy: WP:GNG (Wikipedia:Notability)