William Thornton (immigrant): Much of the content is padding on background history - without that, there is not much on the man himself, and virtually all of that is genealogy or run-of-the-mill property transactions.  Ingratis ( talk ) 05:38, 6 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions .  Ingratis ( talk ) 05:44, 6 September 2023 (UTC) .  [ reply ] This is so frustrating, but I can't see any alternative to delete for this beautiful piece of extended original research by multiple editors who can clearly write well, and have done their work to make sure their facts are correct.  The only secondary sources to which the article refers are backing up generic statements such as the number of people living in an area; all of the information related to the man himself is from primary historical research that should be published somewhere.  We, as an encyclopaedia, are supposed to pick up on those secondary publications, not run our own genealogical history journal.  I suggested a few weeks ago a new namespace for non-encyclopaedic but accurate and interesting information, and this would have been a candidate.  This article needs to exist in the world, but Wikipedia isn't its proper home until all this history has been published somewhere else.  Elemimele ( talk ) 06:41, 6 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Your argument is valid taking into account the article in its present iteration.  The article has been extended by additional editors moving focus further away from the subject to a broader narrative on Virginia history.   The article should be edited down to the original version which focused purely on known facts of William Thornton and why this individual has historical significance.   The significance is in part as a noted colonizer in 17th century Virginia but also as the founding member of family that has contributed greatly to the development of the United States over successive generations.   That foundation (as is often the case with most immigrant settlers) provided the economic and cultural capital for the successive generations.  Encyclopedias are by definition and design supposed to provide concise narratives on many subjects to give a point of reference but not necessarily deep understating of each of the topics within the context of world we live in (which is everything).  The original paired down version should be on Wikipedia as Wikipedia by design is a comprehensive encyclopedia of all subject matters.  "Genealogical" and "run-of-the-mill property transactions" constitute a significant amount of understanding of many individuals of note throughout history.   The majority of Mayflower passengers are only known through land transactions, statistical references in William Bradford's diary and in some instances court cases.  Rather than delete, the community should be editing the article to it's original intention.   Deletion would set a precedent for deleting many thousands of article that provide a point of reference in the intended purpose of Wikipedia.   Articles should be deleted when they provide false information or of erroneous subjects but the logic for completely deleting the subject matter lacks academic merit.  Poundisford ( talk ) 15:44, 6 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The problem is not much is going to be left.  The only secondary reference is (4), which says we don't know who he married.  Yes, of course run-of-the-mill property transactions contribute a significant amount of understanding: they are the raw materials with which historians work.  But the point is that we're supposed to report the outcome of the historians' work, not be the historians.  We should be sourcing this article to Prof. Smith who wrote a book describing his/her studies of those property transactions, not sourcing to the transactions ourselves, and if there is no Prof. Smith, and no book, we're going to struggle.  Elemimele ( talk ) 16:27, 6 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thank you for inviting me to this discussion.  KEEP As reported in the article William Thornton was a vestryman, while this is not explained in the article, and while a parochial position, this was a leadership position, whose duties in our modern times are now conducted by local, state and national officials.  It was one of those postions that gave the colonists the experience to govern themselves.  This alone makes him "notable."  I was saddened to see that original research to correct incorrect secondary sources is given as a reason to eliminate the article.  I could provide a bibliography of the articles and books written, however they are dated and in many cases wrong.  This wrong information keeps getting passed from person to person.  This could be a place where the record could be set straight in a well sourced article on William Thornton.  William Thornton is also the ancestor of many notable descendants.  Information about him may provide insight about them.  Or in the alternative information about him may explain, why his descendants became "notable."  The information about what was happening in the broader context was to inform William Thornton's life.  He was a risk taker, always moving to the edge of the civilized parts of Virginia, leading to his success eventually being elevated to the vestry and providing the where with all for his sons to continue the upward progression of this family in colonial Virginia.  This is not an article reciting a list of deeds.  Land meant economic prosperity and the way to provide for one's family.  I have reviewed this discussion and the deletion policy and I am still confused by why this article has been marked for deletion.  Understanding policies are necessary, I asked they be waived for this profile for the reasons stated.  Finally, I may be, too naive, to think that anyplace can stop William Thornton's loving descendants from recording their family mythology that gives them comfort about their "famous" ancestor.  Just today, I deleted the coat-of-arms on his profile that he did not have.  People hate gaps in information and I deleted the guesses about his wife/wives that many want for him, but have no basis in contempory sources, though supported by multiple unsourced articles and books.  Recent DNA evidence has shown even more of this Thornton mythology is incorrect.  Note: I cannot vouch for the accuracy of anything in "Historical places and estates" nor "Notable descendants of William Thornton."  My interest was this man, who someone else got credit for bringing to Virgina, who moved to the edge of "civilized" Virginia, was successful in gaining land, and became a leader in his community.  I also must admit I am not watching this article and if I had not been invited, I would have had no idea it was marked for deletion.  I also did not know until I visited the profile today that William had been given a coat-of-arms.  Rictobin ( talk ) 16:26, 7 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Please keep comments concise and focused on policy, notability and sources.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  05:44, 13 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete due to WP:TNT .  We simply cannot have pages on en.wp that are full of guesswork and WP:OR .  I think there may be a fair point that this guy was an important historical figure, if so someone can rewrite the page stating only the facts.  All the other stuff can be discussed elsewhere on a genealogical forum.  Other parts of the page may be better addressed on wikidata (such as all the ancestors and related places).  Because en.wiki is not a forum or a soapbox or a place where you can present your original research showing how primary sources got things wrong .  That's it.  Write a stub with the inarguable facts.  Everything else here is unencyclopedic, I'm afraid.  JMWt ( talk ) 07:11, 13 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: @ Rictobin , if this content is not suitable for Wikipedia, might it be appropriate for Family History Research Wiki or WikiTree ?  You've put a lot of work into this.  -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 20:06, 13 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete There doesn't really seem to be that much in terms of reliable secondary referencing.  Best, GPL93 ( talk ) 16:49, 19 September 2023 (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.

Discussion outcome: delete