Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harris Bigg-Wither

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. --Core desat 20:28, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Harris Bigg-Wither

Nom and vote...
Del on this exquisite model of WP-Bio style, which nevertheless is technically eligible for speedy-deletion under provision A7, no claim of notability, and appears to address a n-n topic and person.

_ _ (IMO speedy deletion of such a long-standing and thoroughly collaborated-upon article would abuse both the process and the concept of "speedy".)

_ _ I will joyfully change my vote to Keep if it can be shown that seriously regarded academic Austen scholarship has kept alive any theory of how the night of the 2nd and morning of the 3rd of December 1802 had an impact in her writings -- perhaps mediated by later thots and discussions of them. But the absence of such information in such a polished bio makes me believe no such scholarship exists, despite its eminently plausibility but for the article's history. (I would add that evidence to its talk page, confident that others will eventually reflect it in the article, as would be necessary in the long run.)

_ _ I note that instances of notability are far, far fewer than instances of notability being avoided by at least one factor amounting to a hair's breadth, so that each of many such hair's-breadths are always what has made all the difference in achieving notability rather than utter non-notablity. And being one of the hair's breadths that didn't prevent someones else's notablity is not in itself notable.

_ _ I also would hope that it is obvious that good men, fine manor houses, and English country squires are about a dime a dozen, and thus non-notable, and i trust that the closer will require those asserting notability based on those elements to meet a high evidentiary standard.
-Jerzy•t 20:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, there seems to be no true assertion of notability other than having failed to marry Jane Austen. His place in WP is secured by his inclusion in the Jane Austen article. Sad though, this is by far the most eloquent AFDs I've ever read, and the article is one of the most elegant biographies I've seen that should be deleted. Budgiekiller 20:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no assertion of notability, even fails to make the 'relatives of notable people are not inherently notable' level. Nuttah68 20:36, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per Budgiekiller: little assertion of notability, and having failed to marry Jane Austen is a pretty weak reason why we should have an article on him, when you think about it. Moreschi ^Deletion! 21:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Wikipedia is not Wales's Peerage and we do not compile biographies merely to fill in genealogical trees. --Dhartung | Talk 00:22, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Afterall if Jane Austen gave him the the flick, Wikipedia might as well too. He's still my 4th Gt Granddaddy and he will always be notable to my family - with or without Wikipedia. :-) --BMR789 01:56, 11 January 2007 (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.