Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ralph de Greystoke, 5th Baron Greystoke


 * 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 keep. Black Kite (talk) 21:02, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Ralph de Greystoke, 5th Baron Greystoke

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The page does not adequately reference significant sources. There is heavy reliance on only one source and content is not available at that source. There's a lack of verifiable sources and they do not substantiate the person's notability. Anonymous032 (talk) 16:23, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Snow Keep. The single source is the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography.  I believe what this user means by "content is not available" is that he does not have an online subscription and can't be bothered to find a hardcopy at some library.  The article certainly can be improved, but this AfD is a pointless waste of time. Choor monster (talk) 18:03, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment. Actually, this is a malformed entry. There is no Editing Ralph de Greystoke, 5th Baron Greystoke article to be discussed.  Malformed AfD notice from the original article has been removed.  Proposer is welcome to try again, but it's a pointless exercise, since everyone in ODNB is notable from the get-go. Choor monster (talk) 18:15, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: this AfD was malformed when originally filed, I have now fixed the formatting and transcluded it on the log page.  Hut 8.5  18:57, 5 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep passes WP:GNG as the subject is discussed in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography entry cited in the article. I've seen the entry, it is clearly significant coverage and goes into detail about the subject's life and their role in the conflicts of the period (695 words are devoted to the subject specifically). I can only assume that "content is not available at that source" means "the source is not available for free on the internet to everyone", but there certainly isn't any policy or guideline against the use of such sources and they are widely used. Sources do have to be published, but the ODNB is and I was able to read this entry for free with a library card.  Hut 8.5  19:15, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Speedily Keep and Block Nominator This AfD is purely disruptive and the nominators has already been reported to WP:AIV. Winner 42 Talk to me!  19:23, 5 May 2015 (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.