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. j⚛e decker ^talk 02:45, 6 August 2014 (UTC) reply

John J. Threston (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

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

Looking at the name of the creator, this seems to violate the "not geneology" rules of Wikipedia. This guy was a Justice of the Peace and held other very minor local positions, nothing even comes close to rising to the level of notability John Pack Lambert ( talk) 21:46, 30 July 2014 (UTC) reply

• Keep While the author certainly has a conflict of interest and is likely on a genealogical bent, the subject meets WP:GNG based on mentions in the Wilkes-Barre newspapers. Chris Troutman ( talk) 22:20, 30 July 2014 (UTC) reply

Each and every one of those references cites the subject himself as the author of the reference. I suppose there's a possibility that the creator just cited them incorrectly, but by the evidence at hand they're WP:PRIMARYSOURCES that don't count toward getting a person over the GNG hump. Bearcat ( talk) 21:50, 4 August 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete - This article appears to be primarily genealogy, the offices held don't appear to confer notability, we don't have every small town magistrate judge here, and truant officers aren't notable. If a mention in a newspaper is sufficient to be notable, I'd be eligible for my own article here - and I'm not. XeroxKleenex ( talk) 23:55, 30 July 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:34, 31 July 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:34, 31 July 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Absolutely no claim of notability in the article and zero online presence. The not-geneology policy is just a pile-on.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 01:46, 31 July 2014 (UTC) reply
• Delete per WP:GNG, WP:NOTMEMORIAL and no indication of notability. What's with the concordance of Chaucer? Clarityfiend ( talk) 07:00, 31 July 2014 (UTC) reply
• Info on the case: there is a sockpuppet-investigation undergoing against the initiator of this and all the other Threston-related articles as well as against those that were involved in it. The whole Threston-case is highly questionable as far as coherency and references are concerned. For more details see the data listed here. There are reasons to believe that Threston-related articles might be a fraud or at least reflect a distortion of the facts. I highly recommend to cross-check all references given in those articles. Apart from that: if those data still proof to be sound and true, I still do not find the encyclopedic relevance of this figure. LagondaDK ( talk) 09:50, 31 July 2014 (UTC) reply
• Comment The creator of this article has carried out a campaign against deletion on his talk page and my talk page. One of his claims is that this person being involved in the hearings about a disputed congressional election makes him notable. Considering we don't even have an article on the challenging candidate in that case, that seems to be a stretch. What would seem to apply most in this case is the notability guidelines for politicians, which this person fails miserably. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 20:06, 31 July 2014 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Not notable. A truant officer? Maproom ( talk) 22:38, 31 July 2014 (UTC) reply
• Speedy delete - another Threston vanity article about an incredibly obscure local minor officeholder. -- Orange Mike | Talk 23:36, 31 July 2014 (UTC) reply
• Delete per above - All created by a sock who prefers promoting non notable people. – Davey2010 • (talk) 13:45, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
• Speedy delete all: After the recent update of LagondaDK on his Talk page I suggest ALL of the "articles" listed on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AustralianThreston as part of the sockpuppet network should be speedy-deleted. I think, this is proof enough, that there is not a single one, which is NOT a hoax or at least provide fake information.-- Susumu ( talk) 22:14, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
• Delete. No credible claim of encyclopedic notability in the first place ("justice of the peace" not being a role that gets a person into an encyclopedia). Furthermore, the sources that are being cited as real footnotes all claim the subject as the author of the reference, and we don't count "writing about yourself" as prima facie evidence of notability if that's the only sourcing you've got — and even if they actually were valid references which the author of this article just cited incorrectly, if all it took to pass GNG was getting your name into your own local newspaper two or three times then we'd have to keep a Wikipedia article about every person on earth who ever coordinated a church bake sale. GNG requires much more substantive coverage than has been shown here. Meanwhile, the sources that are just listed and not actually cited as footnotes largely seem to relate to the family genealogy and not to John Threston as an individual (as just one example out of many, "The Bishop of London's Commissary Court 1578-1588" couldn't possibly contain any content whatsoever about a person who wasn't even born until 1872 — and there's no way in bleeding hell that he's got one whit of coverage in a concordance to the works of Geoffrey Chaucer, either.) So passing WP:GNG has not been properly demonstrated here. Bearcat ( talk) 21:46, 4 August 2014 (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.