Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eustace IV de watford


 * 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. RL0919 (talk) 00:57, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Eustace IV de watford

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

I've PRODded this, but the page author removed it. There are references to the existence of this person, but nothing that could make him be considered anything other than one of millions of random documented people in history who at some point owned land and engaged in business and thus left some paper records. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 00:24, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 00:24, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi!! I'm the creator of this article, he held two noble titles, was named in major historical documents (Incl. Cambridge in references) & held relation with the English king. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nyaytyhyaynyiyeylyluytyeysy (talk • contribs) 00:41, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete - There is nothing in this article that explains how he was notable. I almost always consider dead people who lived 100 years ago to be notable if there is an adequate account of them, but this account is not adequate.  Robert McClenon (talk) 04:10, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment I have removed all but one of the citations - of the seven that were given, two were non-reliable online genealogies, and the remaining five were all referring to the same book, via multiple different library catalogs and repositories, plus one book review of the published primary source - there is just one source here, and it is a primary source. Agricolae (talk) 07:53, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete - seems to be just a minor landholder with no substantial coverage in reliable secondary sources. The subject did not 'hold two noble titles', he didn't hold any ('lord of the manor' is just a fancy way of describing the property holder, not a title). Yes he was named, along with a thousand other people, in a listong of people who held land at the time - this does not make someone notable. Agricolae (talk) 07:53, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete, unless additional sources of notability are presented. "Demonstrably owned some land in 13th-century England" doesn't clear the bar. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 12:52, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete When all we can actually say about someone is they owned some land, we do not have enough sourcing to justify an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:27, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility and England.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:00, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete -- A minor landowner, at most: clearly NN. Lordship of a manor is not a title of nobility.  He certainly existed, but so did 1000s of other gentry, mostly NN.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:42, 29 May 2022 (UTC)


 * 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.