Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laird of Burnbrae


 * 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 the main article and merge the others to it (non-admin close). JJL (talk) 04:06, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Laird of Burnbrae

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Series of articles by the same user which are essentially genealogical entries without any indication of notability. No sources are available online other than this user's personal website. She promised to return to add references, but, alas, never did. Jfire (talk) 07:25, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I find a few mentions of a Laird of Burnbrae who is named Archibald Primrose, a name held by several of the Earl of Roseberys, and a mention that the Earldom is a cadet branch of the family. But none of these particular Lairds seem to have obvious notability themselves. --Dhartung | Talk 07:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep main article as a noble title; merge and redirect all others to it. JJL (talk) 20:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Parent & Merge/redir others - Royalty is notable, so Parent Article should remain. Unless each person is independently notable, is notable for something other than the title, redirect them to the Parent Article. Exit2DOS2000   •T•C•  05:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd support this outcome as well. Jfire (talk) 05:38, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Agree with Jfire - This was a gentry family. The suggestion that it was connected with more than a small area is far fetched.  The source cited for this merely indicates that Burnbrae was a common Scottish place name.  My guess is thatthe last laird sold his estate at Tulliallan to Lord Keith, who rebuilt the castle there.  The article on the castle contains no information on its previous history, but a link could be added.  The articles are not helped by having links that are currently redirects to irrelevant pages.  Peterkingiron (talk) 21:20, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * "Keep main article and redirect others..notable as a titled group at minimum. --Stormbay (talk) 22:42, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep/merge as suggested. i think everyone agrees how to deal with this group. SNOW close? DGG (talk) 05:23, 27 February 2008 (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.