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 keep. → Call me Hahc21 02:32, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Musgrave family

[edit]

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

much copy/paste from unreliable sources written in archaic English but no assertion of any acts rendering any notability provided Crusoe8181 (talk) 02:56, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is more a genealogical post than an encyclopedic article. A lot of the content isn't even in proper sentence form and looks like a direct copy and paste from family history sources. It is well established in AfD that Wikipedia is not a genealogical forum and only a very few families have inherent notability. Think royalty and greater hereditary noble families (like the Peerage of Great Britain). Most of the people mentioned in this article seem to be there merely by virtue of having existed and having the same last name. This article, as is far too common with genealogical articles, runs afoul of Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. There is just no evident notability for most of the people in this article. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:47, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A prominent noble family in the north of England like the Percy family. They are covered in sources such as The history and antiquities of the counties of Westmorland and Cumberland and The Beauties of England and Wales and so are notable per WP:GNG. The age of the sources is unimportant in establishing notability because notability does not expire: "Notability is not temporary; once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage." In any case, it is easy to find modern sources too such as Border Liberties and Loyalties: North-east England, C.1200 - C.1400. Andrew (talk) 08:16, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Noble? may say so in article, but all I can see are lords of manors (commoners). All persons mentioned in the pipe rolls are notable? Crusoe8181 (talk) 08:28, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:18, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:18, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Yes, a prominent historic house with multiple notable members, most of whom do not yet have articles. Not quite at the Percy level, but, like the Percys, a source of legend and Child ballads. As usual for this sort of article, the present text needs to be expanded with the proper use of modern sources. DGG ( talk ) 03:10, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment multiple notable members. name two, with articles, please, to satisfy multiple. most of whom do not, infers some do, so who are they? Crusoe8181 (talk) 09:44, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - To start with, we have Richard, Philip, Christopher, Philip and Richard. Andrew (talk) 07:57, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Changing my vote on the basis of Andrew's comment above. There does appear to be enough notability in the family for an article, although this one needs serious work. -Ad Orientem (talk) 08:14, 12 March 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.