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. Consensus that he fails WP:N, but also no evidence presented in the article or this discussion to verify his existence and so also fails WP:V. TigerShark (talk) 14:22, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Southcott (died 1657) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:N / WP:V? For starters, is it Southcott, Southcote, or Southcot? The first source mentions a "captain Southcot", in passing, without first name or dates or any further information, so isn't useful here. The second source doesn't seem to include anyone named Southcot (in any variation). I have not been able to find a source that verifies the existence of Southcot(e)(t) Island. Finally, the third source, not linked in the article but available online[1], has a chapter on the Southcote family, but doesn't mention a Thomas (not on page 399, not in the index).

Looking for other sources gives e.g. this about the baronetcy, which doesn't mention Thomas or his role in the creation of it. This is the only thing which perhaps verifies the bare existence of this Thomas, but he is said here to have died in 1639. Fram (talk) 13:26, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, History, Military, and England. Fram (talk) 13:26, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Thank god there is a family tree at Southcott family (the variation in the family name seems to just be a symptom of history). This is not Thomas Southcote MP, this is his uncle, also named Thomas. This Thomas this not not notable by any stretch of the imagination, having never been an MP and drastically failing WP:GNG. Potential redirects as an WP:ATD could be Southcott family, Battle of Gunnislake New Bridge, or Southcote baronets. Curbon7 (talk) 13:56, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, not even that. Unless there is verification for e.g. his role in the Battle of Gunnislake New Bridge (which I didn't find), he should not be redirected there but on the contrary he should be removed from that family. And that the two other articles we first need to remove all unverifiable claims about him as well, and only if something is still left then should a redirect be considered. For example, unless we have evidence that someone with this name and from these families actually died in 1657, we shouldn't have a redirect with that claim in it. Fram (talk) 14:04, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all I find are family trees or people born hundreds of years later in more modern sources. I don't think this fellow did much to warrant an article here. Oaktree b (talk) 20:17, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No claim to notability. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:11, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Southcott family Southcote baronets 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 07:22, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Southcote baronets, where there is already an account of him in much the same terms as this article. A redirect to Southcott family is a destructive option as it does not provide any detail of his career. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:46, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Why do people keep voting Redirect when there is zero evidence presented that there even was a Thomas Southcott died 1657? All you do is perpetuating fake information. What should happen after this AfD is that the other articles get checked and this and other nonsense removed, not that this completely unverifiable thing gets redirected to another place with the same madeup text. Fram (talk) 05:31, 5 July 2022 (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.