Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Moulsoe

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 redirect to Gayhurst House. Content can be merged from history if desired. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:31, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

William Moulsoe

William Moulsoe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats

)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Declined prod due to contestation on article's talk page. However that rationale was that he was associated with a few notable people, and his input at Gayhurst House. However notability is not inherited. He could warrant a mention on both the Everard Digby and Gayhurst articles, but there is no notability on his own. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:44, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:49, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:49, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Maybe it is too early in the AM here, but I am having trouble deciphering the prose of the article. I think this needs an editor to sort out the convoluted intro. Lightburst (talk) 14:52, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Selectively merge the last sentence to
  WP:NOTGENEALOGY. The prose is convoluted, I think, because it is so hard to explain how Moulsoe in particular is notable (he's not)—hence the multiple clauses connecting him with notable relatives. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:53, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete I already PRODed this. Looking at it again I still don’t think the subject is notable. As you can see on the talk page creator suggested merging part of it into another article. I’d be fine with that but I think the fundamental point is that while the subject was connected with notable people, he wasn’t notable himself. Mccapra (talk) 02:24, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to whichever associated article mentions him, no objections to any merge, but he does not appear to have stand alone notability. This is effectivelly a generalogical entry for 'someone related to someone who is notable'. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:37, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Replaced with redirect to Gayhurst House per discussion. Smallus Editus (talk) 16:03, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I undid the change for now. You should not change the article while it is under discussion, even if the outcome is likely. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 09:32, 20 September 2020 (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.