Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Richard James Hayler

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:22, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

William Richard James Hayler

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

nominated the article for deletion as the sources used (mostly Ancestry.com ) are unreliable and are not suitable to establish notability. Did check to find coverage about the subject of the article and found nothing that meet Wikipedia criteria for notability. No in-depth coverage from reliable sources FuzzyMagma (talk) 17:20, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:35, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:35, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:36, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - all cites in the article are from genealogy websites like Ancestry which are unreliable. No coverage beyond that. -estar8806 (talk) ★ 18:20, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no indication of significance. Kazamzam (talk) 18:36, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:21, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No sourcing in Gnews, newspapers or books. Working on the Royal Yacht could perhaps be notable (and that's a big if), with no sourcing in RS and none found, this one's a bust. Delete for lack of notability. Oaktree b (talk) 19:36, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No credible claim of notability. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:19, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There's something else peculiar here: note the references to Queen Victoria. She died in 1901, but the events are claimed to have happened in 1907. Using my British Newspaper Archive subscription I can confirm that the story from the Sussex Agricultural Express exists and has been quoted correctly, but the quote in the article is the entirety of the story rather than just an excerpt. Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 22:33, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not notable; no reliable sources found. Quuxbazbarfoo (talk) 14:01, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Being a member of the crew of a Royal Yacht doesn't ensure notability. Best, GPL93 (talk) 14:36, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Zero notability. But you have to love someone in 1907 being described as a "marine engineering technician"! No, he was a stoker. The Queen is question was presumably Queen Alexandra, not Queen Victoria. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:21, 31 October 2023 (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.