- 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 no consensus. I will open an WP:RM discussion for this article. (non-admin closure) feminist ( talk) 06:41, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
AfDs for this article:
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Thomas Brierley ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
There isn't the slightest indication of notability, or why he would be considered notable. Some small coverage in niche publications is not enough. Boleyn ( talk) 11:36, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 13:05, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 13:05, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
- Delete nothing in the article show that he was notable, there may be an indication that the memorial may have been of note but it has zero references. MilborneOne ( talk) 13:26, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep based on the reliable source coverage. Meets
WP:GNG. The
cipher on the headstone was presented as a mystery in books and newspaper articles right into the latter part of the 20th century.
The subject gets coverage and yet was born over two centuries ago. We keep subjects like this. Wm335td ( talk) 19:47, 2 January 2020 (UTC)- I would argue that the memorial could be considered notable, but certainly not the man, and the article is on him. Boleyn ( talk) 07:42, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - Nocturnal306 talk 22:56, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - Nocturnal306 talk 22:56, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
- Move and reword to Thomas Brierly Grave Cipher [ Username Needed 12:21, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
- At most Weak keep (perhaps renamed)-- The individual in question is completely NN. The only question is whether his grave stone with its masonic cipher is notable; amd about that I do not know. Peterkingiron ( talk) 16:13, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear ( talk) 00:00, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear ( talk) 00:00, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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 no consensus. I will open an WP:RM discussion for this article. (non-admin closure) feminist ( talk) 06:41, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
AfDs for this article:
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Thomas Brierley ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
There isn't the slightest indication of notability, or why he would be considered notable. Some small coverage in niche publications is not enough. Boleyn ( talk) 11:36, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 13:05, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 13:05, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
- Delete nothing in the article show that he was notable, there may be an indication that the memorial may have been of note but it has zero references. MilborneOne ( talk) 13:26, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
- Keep based on the reliable source coverage. Meets
WP:GNG. The
cipher on the headstone was presented as a mystery in books and newspaper articles right into the latter part of the 20th century.
The subject gets coverage and yet was born over two centuries ago. We keep subjects like this. Wm335td ( talk) 19:47, 2 January 2020 (UTC)- I would argue that the memorial could be considered notable, but certainly not the man, and the article is on him. Boleyn ( talk) 07:42, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - Nocturnal306 talk 22:56, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - Nocturnal306 talk 22:56, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
- Move and reword to Thomas Brierly Grave Cipher [ Username Needed 12:21, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
- At most Weak keep (perhaps renamed)-- The individual in question is completely NN. The only question is whether his grave stone with its masonic cipher is notable; amd about that I do not know. Peterkingiron ( talk) 16:13, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear ( talk) 00:00, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear ( talk) 00:00, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- 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.