Talk:John Sutton V

message: This page is nothing but dates and genealogy.  What about this person makes them notable? Agricolae (talk) 21:01, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Still nothing but dates and genealogy - still not notable. If no suggestion of notability appears shortly, I will merge/redirect. Agricolae (talk) 15:12, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: As my motivations have been mischaracterized (), I will explain.  This individual is non-notable.  That someone was born is not a claim to notability.  That someone was child of parents and grandchild of grandparents is not a claim to notability.  That someone was father of someone, no matter how important, is not a claim to notability (WP:NOTINHERITED; also WP:BIO - "Being related to a notable person in itself confers no degree of notability upon that person").  This article contains no claim to notability whatsoever, and hence WP:SPEEDY, indicates that this article is subject to Speedy Deletion: "A7. No indication of importance (individuals, animals, organizations, web content). An article about a real person, individual animal(s), organization (e.g. band, club, company, etc., except schools), or web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant."  Now I didn't do that. Instead, back in May, I raised the concern, and allowed it to be improved.  After several months, the only changes have been to add information that does nothing to establish notability (alternative birthplace, 'title' of father and grandfather, name of wife's grandmother with a made-up birthdate, etc.) and a rearrangement of order.  It not only lacks an indication of importance, it lacks any indication that the person did anything but be born, marry, knock up his wife, and die - billions of people have accomplished the same tasks. This is not notability. Why should I NOT propose it for Speedy deletion? Agricolae (talk) 18:17, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Verifiability is a pillar of Wikipedia.  That means you can't just cite whatever a Google search turns up and call it reliable. "I found it on some web page" just doesn't cut it.  It doesn't matter how well written it is, it may just be a pig with lipstick.  To be reliable, a source should have been independently evaluated.  As well written as this page is, the form you are citing is self-published.  The process of publication in a scholarly journal involves peer review, and this confirmation by un-interested parties is the independent evaluation that renders such a study reliable, but can likewise result in significant changes to the work (e.g. unsupported statements may be removed).  How similar a pre-published version is to the final version can only be determined by comparing them, but with a published version, a reliable version, available then why would you not cite the reliable version rather than the self-published one?  This makes no reflection on the authors. Both have published other genealogical articles in recognized journals and I hold the second in particular esteem, but such articles typically go through several rounds of revisions, between the two authors and then after review by the journal, and you can't tell what step in the process a pre-print reflects. More importantly, we don't have to make this determination: the published version is right there to be cited. It is one of the standards of Wikipedia verifiability that a self-published work is not considered reliable, a peer-reviewed, published article is, and given the choice you insist on citing the wrong one. Of course, this is all much ado about nothing, as there is nothing notable about the subject of this article. Agricolae (talk) 20:23, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reliable sources 

message: Updated with proper references. Thanks,  — Jason Sosa 21:31, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry, but there is still nothing here.  Wikipedia is not a genealogical site.  For a man to be notable, he has to have received significant (specific) coverage in reliable secondary literature.  If the best we can do are some genealogical scribblings from the 19th century that are just giving his place in a longer genealogical line, then he isn't notable.  I have redirected, as I should have done long ago. Agricolae (talk) 21:42, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I see you are still working on it, so i will wait and see what you come up with, but expanding what is said about his grandfather and his father-in-law don't cut it. Agricolae (talk) 21:43, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: You can propose either a wp:merge or wp:afd if you would like. I also suggest getting community wide attention at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies so that other editors can provide input, that way we can avoid just you and I undoing each other. I support the article as notable for John V being the 4th Baron Sutton of Dudley, one of four predecessors to the Baron Dudley. Thanks,   — Jason Sosa 04:03, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability