Talk:William de Warenne

merge of Ralph de Warenne
,, , , (I'm only pinging the most vocal people in the AfD, as the next step doesn't seem too controversial to me, if others should be pinged, feel free to do so) I've merged the charter stuff to the third Earl and mentioned the charters at the second Earl. I've already added the Lord of Whitchurch stuff to the page on that town, Whitchurch, Shropshire. I think the Ralph de Warenne redirect should be to a de Warenne family page and not to either of the Williams (or to this page). That way the Ralph de Warenne from that page and his great-grandfather (Ranulf, father of the first Earl) can both be briefly mentioned and searches for Ralph de Warenne get something with the proper context. I'll plan on making that family page over the next week or so (unless anyone else has does so first). The page for Ralph can, in my view, be turned into a redirect here or to either Earl's page or can be left as it is until the new page is created. At the new page, mention of Ralph, son of the second Earl, should (I think) be very brief, only stating his father and his possible relationship with the Lords of Whitchurch. Smmurphy(Talk) 03:13, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * That was a disappointing close. I don't think the merge !voters really thought about the practicalities of merging it (as evidenced by the fact that they all suggested a disambiguation page as the target!) I'm minded to take it to WP:DRV, but if not your plan sounds like a way to make the best out of a bad situation. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 08:49, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd contribute to a review, but I don't have any experience with it at all and find AfD closure decisions to be a bit ad hoc. In general, I think no concensus should be a much more common close outcome in cases like this, merge/deletion in spite of multiple reliable sources of seeming depth confuse me, and I don't really understand the justification behind merge closes very well. That is to say, I know I don't agree with all of the current closing norms; I'm not sure if that is my problem, a problem with a number of closing admins, or something else; and I worry that at a DRV I'll discover that I am the problem. In this case, the history is kept and if, as Rogermx points out, a more recent/modern source is found, the article can (should?) be revived.
 * In any case, I've started a page at User:Smmurphy/de Warenne with a family tree taken from the constituent pages (thinking the best pattern is de Lacy), but I think I'm going to scrap that direction and more closely follow House of Percy and the Encyclopedia Britanica (1911) here and here and expanding to include a few less lordly related Warennes of note. Smmurphy(Talk) 16:33, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I feel the same way (in terms of no consensus being the better close, but being reticent to kick up a fuss at DRV in case it's just me not liking the decision). Given the awkward merge we're now tasked with, could you be convinced to close as no consensus instead? –&#8239;Joe (talk) 10:35, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I would not mind changing it to "no consensus".  MBisanz  talk 20:05, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Can we do that, then? –&#8239;Joe (talk) 14:23, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes! Sorry. I got distracted by the excellent weather in DC.  MBisanz  talk 13:25, 24 January 2017 (UTC)