Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saltwood Kent Lordship of The Manor


 * 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. Michig (talk) 21:09, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Saltwood Kent Lordship of The Manor

 * – ( View AfD View log )

I found no sources for this title. At first I thought that it referred to Saltwood Castle, but there is no mention of King Cnut and David Charles Deal. SL93 (talk) 13:36, 22 December 2011 (UTC) 
 * Delete The title is not inherently notable, for reasons explained in the WP article on the subject. So an article could only be justified under WP:GNG, a highly exceptional circumstance and not one that applies here so far as I can determine. The article is, I might add, somewhat misleading in its reference to the deed of 1036, which appears to merely be a transfer of the ownership on the manor to the church and is quite different from the grant of title in relation to a hereditary peerage. --AJHingston (talk) 14:38, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 13:52, 29 December 2011 (UTC)




 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  — Frankie (talk) 12:53, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions.  — Frankie (talk) 12:53, 30 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete -- The article was created by User:Lord Saltwood, who has done nothing else on WP than write a single line. The creator is likely to be a person who has bought the lordship of the manor, which is an empty tite and does not confer the right on the owner to call himslef "Lord Foo".  If the article had any substanive content, I might have suggsted merging with Saltwood or possibly Saltwood Castle, but it does not.  Peterkingiron (talk) 17:06, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete, without prejudice to recreation if backed up by reliable sources. This could be anything from a real title of nobility to a made-up vanity title. Speaking as someone who use to deal with this sort of thing at work, I can tell you that the lengths that both buyers and sellers of titles go to in order to justify the latter kind quite astonishing. My experience is that titles trade is a nasty piece of vanity business that preys of people's insecurities with promises of importance and self-worth, and I am strongly of the opinion that NO-ONE should feed this business. Yes, there might be more to this that a fabricated title, but until we get evidence to the contrary, this should be deleted as unverified. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 18:02, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * On that theme, I am not convinced that the mere existence of reliable sources would be enough. Even in the medieval period lords of the manor were only of local importance and not separable from the manor in question. I would want to see real assertion of notability for inclusion in Wikipedia, for example because the administration of a particular manor had been the subject of a detailed academic study. To use an analogy, we do not have articles about mayoralties except in the case of the most important cities and towns, yet there is no dispute that they exist. If there is anything interesting to say on the subject they would be covered under the place to which they belonged, properly sourced. --AJHingston (talk) 01:30, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * A discussion of the descent of the manor might be an appropriate addition to Saltwood or (if it was the manor house) Saltwood Castle. Certainly not a stand-alone article.  (voted above).  Peterkingiron (talk) 13:27, 5 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete: if there is a reliable source it might merit a sentence in the Saltwood article, but no indication that this is notable enough to merit a WP article. Pam  D  18:04, 2 January 2012 (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.