Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Brockman Esq

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) 15:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] William Brockman Esq

Non-notable: Wikipedia is not a genealogy database Tearlach 10:30, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

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)

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 18:24, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

• 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)
• 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 16:47, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
• Do not delete. 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 16:58, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I see nothing in the article indicating why the subject meets WP:BIO. --Kinu ^t/_c 17:21, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete. Suggest that similar results should also obtain for James Brockman Esq b1626; if nothing else the name should be standardised. Generally, holders of noble titles are notable per se without regard to individual accomplishments, but I'm not sure that this should extend to the entire landed gentry of England. Am open to argument one way or another. Some of the Brockmans in the series were in fact apparently worthy subjects in themselves. Smerdis of Tlön 18:55, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, Wikipedia is not a genealogy database. User:Zoe|^(talk) 22:37, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per other Brockman article. Danny Lilithborne 23:31, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
• KeepThese are properly sourced, who cares whether the subjects have titles of nobility if that seems to be the criteria wikipedia is going by these days.66.30.202.173 00:15, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

66.30.202.173

Sockpuppet - unless it's coincidence that this IP address editor and Brockmanah both sign with Regards, ABrockman [1] [2] Tearlach 01:16, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

It is a coincidence. Could you address the argument Tearlach, or at least admit that titles of nobility constitute notability on wikipedia as Ihcoyc notes? Perhaps that's the truth of it - a title of nobility is notable. Landed gentry are a step too far. 66.30.202.173

• Delete Genealogycruft. --Wine Guy Talk 00:29, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

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)

• Delete per nom. Postdlf 14:12, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. At best a single article on the manor as per Postdlf under the first of these four AFD's. Caerwine Caerwhine 17:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Delete. No fame or achievement, not notable.

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.