Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moutray of Seafield and Roscobie, now of Favour Royal, Co. Tyrone: an Historical and Genealogical memoir of the family in Scotland, England, Ireland and America


 * 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   speedy delete.

Moutray of Seafield and Roscobie, now of Favour Royal, Co. Tyrone: an Historical and Genealogical memoir of the family in Scotland, England, Ireland and America

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

The lengthy title gives a few clues but its not clear what this article is about. Much of the text was copied from this webpage which might not be a copyvio due to the age of the work but does make make for a coherent article. No claim of notability either. RadioFan (talk) 15:30, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete The title of the article appears to reference a book, but the article itself does not talk about the book. Rather it cites various information from the book in a somewhat disorganized manner.  Cleanup is possible, but that would only leave an article that duplicates the contents of the book, which is not really a proper encyclopedia article.  The book itself does not appear to be notable.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 15:41, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete I'd been about to propose same, after looking at this new article and also today's edits to the article on the town of Culross. In both cases, what's been added is effectively a genealogical scratchpad of a particular family name. That is useful in its place, but not, I think, for general Wikipedia articles. AllyD (talk) 15:44, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Melville Amadeus Henry Douglas Heddle de La Caillemotte de Massue, 9th Marquis of Ruvigny and Raineval, who seems (from what I can make out) to be the author of the book this article seems to be about. The article itself is more like a jumble of genealogical notes and references connected with the Moutray family rather than an encyclopaedia article about the book.  Despite reams of apparent references cited, I can't find anything much that deals with the book itself or why it is notable.  Ka renjc 15:46, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment For what its worth, take a look at the attack left on my talk page by the creator of this article. Doesn't look like they are going to be very open to anything but leaving this article as is, which doesn't really seem like a good option.--RadioFan (talk) 16:02, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Unsalvageable mess. Nsk92 (talk) 16:18, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - or redirect. The difficulties in discerning the subject and the apparent lack of notability are reason enough. I've raised this author at WP:COIN Dougweller (talk) 16:22, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete, tag added. This is pure nonsense: delete per CSD G1. &mdash; Timneu22 · talk 16:39, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete, as essentially incomprehensible. Claritas (talk) 16:55, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete It's not incoherent enough for G1 as it does make a certain sense, even though it is somewhat of a gallimaufry as it stands. There are quite a few ghits for 'Moutray', but no seeming indication of notability. Many old families survived by being not very notable. It was a good strategy. There would appear to have been a lot of work done on this family history, but Wikipedia is not the place for it, I'm afraid. Peridon (talk) 18:20, 3 May 2010 (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.