Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Abercromby (monk)

: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 Keep. Michig (talk) 09:22, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

=[[John Abercromby (monk)]]=

:{{la|John Abercromby (monk)}} – (View AfDView log)

:({{Find sources|John Abercromby (monk)}})

Evidence suggests that this monk probably never existed. The only claim to notability is his martyrdom. Finally, there is no evidence that his non-existence is notable. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 04:11, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

  • Keep. We have numerous articles on people who never existed. He has a DNB article, which is usually taken as a criterion for notability. Cusop Dingle (talk) 07:54, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:47, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:47, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:47, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

  • Keep. Subject of an article in a dictionary of national biography. Pburka (talk) 16:04, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep. Anyone with an entry in the definitive dictionary of British biography is certainly notable enough, mythical or not, for an article on Wikipedia with its myriad articles on modern "celebrity" non-entities. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:45, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep, we'd be quite foolish to tell the Dictionary that their inclusion criteria are flawed. Nyttend (talk) 18:43, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep per all of the above. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:20, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep -- The fact that he is listed in ODNB, is sufficient to justify the existence of the article. I will add a little to the text, having exmained the ODNB article. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:12, 28 December 2011 (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.