Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sir Urian Brereton

{{AFD help}}

:{{la|Sir Urian Brereton}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sir_Urian_Brereton Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|Sir Urian Brereton}})

No evidence of any notability, and may not even be RS'd. Slatersteven (talk) 12:24, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

• Comment Based on a preliminary search, I'd probably agree he doesn't seem particularly notable, but the page was only created 8 minutes before you nominated it. The person might have sources that aren't online. Should it be moved to user space or something like that? ManicSpider (talk) 12:48, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

::I did a search and found nothing,. moreover they have been working on this since at least 31 January 2017 (see their talk page). I think a year is long enough to find sources. indeed it had been CSD'd only yesterday.Slatersteven (talk) 12:51, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

• Note I found some sources, and added some facts about him to the article based on these.--Pontificalibus 13:11, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

::Odd how it took this AFD to get this started. Not sure oif these are quite enough, but they maybe.Slatersteven (talk) 13:12, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:46, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

• Keep I would think any member of the privy chamber under Henry VIII would be notable, and there are enough sources to write an article here.--Pontificalibus 15:12, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
• Comment We; I know thesources for this period if nothing else. Lets' have a look.{{pb}}Cheshire Parish Register Database is of course a primary source. Prathergenealogy.com is a private website with no editiorial overview. Findagrave I believe to be a no-no. There's nothing wrong with the Victorian antiquariana, but, frankly, you could mine it a lot further. And the same, writ large, goes for Thornton, the best source you've got, and yet hardly touched. At the moment, you've got the passing mentions (inherited this, was appointed that, etc.—everything exected of the 16th-century gentry), but not the in-depth coverage required by WP:GNG.{{pb}}Incidentally, the Queen naming her lap dog after you is probably the greatest claim of significance going! All the best, ——SerialNumber54129 15:32, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
• Keep This man had several county-wide roles, as mentioned in the current article, there's more detail about him in the book Cheshire and the Tudor State 1480-1560 which Pontificalibus added, not to mention that he was knighted for valour - he is definitely notable, and there is significant coverage of him. I don't think it's odd at all that other editors didn't work on an article that only existed in mainspace for 13 minutes before being nominated for deletion, and I do wonder how thorough WP:BEFORE was. RebeccaGreen (talk) 15:44, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:22, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:22, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

• Keep To me, he is clearly encyclopedic. Also, other members of the privy chamber with him who have pages are John Carey (courtier), Anthony Denny, and Walter Walsh (courtier).[https://books.google.com/books?id=LTorDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA265] Walsh in particular could use some attention. Smmurphy^(Talk) 18:55, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
• Keep. Courtiers are notable. Knights are notable. Should be moved to Urian Brereton though. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:27, 30 January 2019 (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.