Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Wilton

{{AFD help}}

:{{la|1=Richard Wilton}} – (View AfDView log | edits since nomination)

:({{Find sources AFD|title=Richard Wilton}})

Lack of notability Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 16:11, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

• Delete. In response to the recent PROD nomination, I had a look at the sources. It seems quite possible that the name "Richardus de Wilton" or suchlike was an artefact, suggested by some misunderstood manuscript material. So I was happy to see the PROD stand. I deprecate the further business of bringing the matter up at AfD. There may be some less obvious source that validates Wilton, and there is no need to make the deletion emphatic. Charles Matthews (talk) 16:18, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Philosophy, History, and England. Shellwood (talk) 16:21, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
• Comment This is difficult to assess. Three dates are given for his death, and it's not clear why or how the Catholic Encyclopedia (1913) determines that 1239 is correct, rather than 1339 or 1439. However, notability would seem to be determined by how much coverage there is in each of the sources used by the Catholic Encyclopaedia, and how reliable those sources are. The questions about the biographical claims suggest that they are not very reliable. {{ping|Charles Matthews}}, it sounds as if you have been able to access the original sources - would you be able to clarify how much coverage there is in each source? Also, as a matter of interest, are the works he wrote extant, or just reported in these sources? (My searches led me to sources about a Richard Wilton who was a Benedictine monk at Glastonbury Abbey and studied at Leuven. [https://eds.p.ebscohost.com/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=1&sid=e65b1b5a-a8ad-4717-9ea8-4470dcb00482%40redis] This seems to have been during the time when Robert Stillington was Bishop of Bath and Wells, in the second half of the 15th century. That Richard Wilton apparently failed to pass on information about a plot against the king in 1500 [https://eds.p.ebscohost.com/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=1&sid=96f5ea65-d938-42e0-9ae2-16f797ac4904%40redis], so he doesn't actually fit with even the latest date for this Richard Wilton. I didn't find anything about this Richard Wilton, though I'm probably not looking in the right places.) RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:49, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

::{{ping|RebeccaGreen}} I didn't go very deeply. It was more like a WP:BEFORE-compliant assessment, for example seeing what came up on Google Books. I did pick up a bibliography of manuscripts in Cambridge libraries, which seemed a fair test of general notability. Charles Matthews (talk) 08:54, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

:

• Delete Unless this fellow has captured the imagination of a very diligent doctoral student, I can't imagine that we will find sufficient information for an article. He wrote (if he did) over 200 years before the printing press, so his works would have existed in very few manuscript copies. He would have written in Latin, and using a latinate form of his name ("Richardus de Wilton"), but we should expect spelling variations as spelling was far from settled. The different death dates are a good indication that accurate information does not exist. Even the one good source listed here mainly talks about who he isn't. Lamona (talk) 03:21, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
• Delete per above, little reliable source coverage. GoldRomean (talk) 02:26, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.