Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Berwick

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 of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 06:27, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Berwick

This article does not explain the notability of its subject. That he was mentioned in a book is not enough to show relevance. JDoorjam 02:33, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~. Weak keep per below. PJM 02:40, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Statement of notability now added. Drew (Snottygobble) | Talk 02:45, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep and block nominator for violation of WP:POINT, as these obviously follow on from the failing AfD of John Warren (convict), which has a clear plurality to keep. Ambi 02:55, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sarah Ewart 03:02, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn. User:Zoe|^(talk) 03:10, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ambi -- Ian ≡ talk 03:12, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ keep. But someone is going to have to make a disambig page eventually to distinguish this guy from the much better known Thomas Berwick the artist. Crypticfirefly 03:14, 16 January 2006 (UTC) I notice that Berwick's town, Jarrahdale considered him notable enough to mention on their own web page, if not in any detail. Crypticfirefly 03:39, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The artist has an article at Thomas Bewick. --Scott Davis ^Talk 03:25, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ambi. Bduke 03:24, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Put into a broader article if possible, delete otherwise, per my comments on John Warren. enochlau (talk) 06:11, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ambi. Let's not get into the habit of nominating everything for deletion.Englishrose 08:05, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, being a ex-convict schoolteacher is non-notable, even if it was rare. Plus, 39 of the 9721 convicts actually became schoolteachers, so it is not even that rare. Given the number of people with the job of schoolteacher in the general population, that does not seem like a rate all the different than non-convicts. If the book is notable, an article should be written on it instead. -- Kjkolb 12:34, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, important part of Australian history. -Colin Kimbrell 15:30, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep please this is notable Yuckfoo 00:54, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Crypticfirefly. I wonder if this Thomas Berwick is the (great)grandson of that Thomas Be(r)wick? --Scott Davis ^Talk 03:25, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Stifle 20:47, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this is the same issue as John Warren (convict)--A Y Arktos 08:00, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. Grue 17:00, 19 January 2006 (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.