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. (ESkog)^(Talk) 15:54, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable; Wikipedia is not a genealogy database Tearlach 10:26, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just reviewed the ISNOT page and there is no mention of "wikipedia is not a genealogical database". There is however an entry of "Wikipedia is not an experiment in rule-making". Is this an excorcise in rulemaking? Sandwich Eater 18:18, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, but there is the section Genealogical entries, or phonebook entries. Biography articles should only be for people with some sort of fame, achievement, or perhaps notoriety. As I said elsewhere, there's been repeated precdent for deletion on grounds of Wikipedia is not a genealogy database. Tearlach 18:23, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:BIO and nom Alphachimp ^talk 14:45, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Leave it!This particular line of people maintained an interesting manor at Beachborough that draws a few tourists and played a role during WWII. It is interesting to some to note how the estate changed hands et cetera. From an objective/international point of view I am not sure how much of the titled aristocracy documented in Wikipedia has any more relevance than these particular gentry. You seem to be discriminating entirely based on the English system of aristocratic titles, or, do you advocate that all of the non-famous aristocracy holding titles be deleted from wikipedia including the Stuarts and other interesting lines? This line is interesting to some people and the pages have gotten some visits and attention. Sandwich Eater 16:34, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom and WP:BIO. These people are not notable or of any sort of wide public or media interest. The sources are obscure genealogical compilations. --MCB 16:46, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I originated the article and I have had a lot of inquiries and communications about it. I think it is of reasonable interest to enough people to leave it in. Brockmanah 16:57, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I see nothing in the article indicating why the subject meets WP:BIO. --Kinu ^t/_c 17:21, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, Wikipedia is not a genealogy database. User:Zoe|^(talk) 22:38, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete besides the awful title, it fails WP:BIO. Danny Lilithborne 23:30, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It is properly sourced and notability is completely arbitrary. Titles of nobility seem to be a criteria applied to notability and I don't agree with that. Trying to apply all these rules to wikipedia is going to hurt wikipedia, not help it.66.30.202.173 00:20, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

66.30.202.173

Sockpuppet' - unless it's coincidence that this IP address editor and Brockmanah both sign with Regards, ABrockman [1] [2] Tearlach 00:54, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Tearlach it is a coincidence. I think it would be helpful if you could actually address the argument. Other commenters are willing to admit that titles of nobility confer notability, but landed gentry in the UK might be a bit too far. 66.30.202.173 01:49, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Genealogycruft. --Wine Guy Talk 00:27, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

keep Sorry, I think the deleters are getting carried away with what they determine is 'notable' and what isn't. Same goes for other articles in this series. 155.91.28.231 14:10, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Perhaps a single article on the Manor could be written, but if the most interesting things about it are that it was used by the military during WWII (what wasn't used by the military in England during WWII??) and is currently a B&B, then I doubt that would be worthwhile either. Postdlf 14:14, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. At best a single article on the manor as per Postdlf. Caerwine Caerwhine 17:49, 19 July 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.