Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Lewis (of Harpton)


 * 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 consensus seems to go for a keep Tone 21:26, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Thomas Lewis (of Harpton)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Unsourced sub-stub or a 16th century Member of Parliament (in the pre-1707 Parliament of England), no evidence of any possibility of expansion. This is not an article, it is a list entry, and I see no reasonable prospect of expansion beyond a one-line stub. It should be deleted without prejudice to re-creating it if and when someone has some sources to write even a meaningful stub article.

Per WP:POLITICIAN, Members of Parliament are presumed to be notabile ... but notability of a topic does mean that it is any way helpful to the reader to create a one-line sub-stub article which says no more than can be found at Radnorshire (UK_Parliament_constituency) -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:19, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions.  — Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:21, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.   Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:25, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge into a list. Or delete. Kittybrewster   &#9742;  08:21, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * All the information in the article as nominated is already in the list at Radnorshire (UK_Parliament constituency). -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:02, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Regardless of length, Lewis meets WP:POLITICIAN and therefore this should be expanded, not deleted. It is a very new article, and has the potential to expand. It has been expanded slightly since nomination and I'm continuing to work on it. Boleyn3 (talk) 09:43, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Userfy to allow the creator to add more content. Movementarian  (talk)  11:50, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep MPs are regarded as notable. One of a series of noms made by BrownHairedGirl aimed at the contributions of Boleyn for reasons of her own. DuncanHill (talk) 15:19, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It's a pity that DuncanHill apparently didn't read the nomination. Those "reasons of her own" are that the article as created is one a long series of wholly unreferenced sub-stubs of a dozen words or less, created by splat-pasting and littered with very errors. Notability is irrelevant: the nom acknowledges that the topic has presumed notability, and proposes "should be deleted without prejudice to re-creating it if and when someone has some sources to write even a meaningful stub article". I have since noticed that the sub-stub which I nominated fails WP:CSD, so I should have just speedy-deleted it. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:59, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I have a lot of experience dealing with over-enthusiastic admins on speedy sprees, please don't go down that road. As for not reading the nom, I felt it kinder to ignore the ludicrous assertion "no evidence of any possibility of expansion" and put it down to the heat. 17:54, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep: I've added a reference to the page from which a few more details could be added. Dsp13 (talk) 16:40, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep unless someone has a good reason why MPs from that far back are unlikely to have enough information to create more than a stub. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 16:56, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep this is one of many disruptive nominations from a user bullying another. The notability guidelines are pretty clear on this one. Jeni  ( talk ) 00:12, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep - Any MP, from however long ago, deserves his or her own article. If it's too short for your liking, make it better. This article is no worse than tens of thousands of other stubs on notable subjects.Minnowtaur (talk) 06:46, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notability guidelines should not be applied robotically as black letter law. They are guidelines and only give rise to presumptions of notability and inclusion. I would support in some cases the deletion of nano-stubs about technically notable people that offer no prospect of expansion. On the other hand, short sourced stubs about non-living notable people do little harm. In this case, I think there is barely enough information to support inclusion, noting that the article has been expanded somewhat since the nomination.--Mkativerata (talk) 07:02, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - there may be MPs about which nothing is known but, in this case, there are a couple of paragraphs in The House of Commons 1509-1558, and I've used these and a local history to expand the article. Warofdreams talk 16:49, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep Clearly notable as a member of Parliament. Edward321 (talk) 23:50, 2 July 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.