Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Cunningham, 6th Earl of Glencairn


 * 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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 06:51, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

William Cunningham, 6th Earl of Glencairn

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This genealogical entry on a non-notable person violates a Wikipedia policy, WP:NOT: "Genealogical entries. Biography articles should only be for people with some sort of fame, achievement, or perhaps notoriety. " This is community consensus expressed in policy and quoted here by me, not my personal opinion. Drawn Some (talk) 20:12, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Ridiculous as it may be, there is long standing agreement that earls and so on are notable, and that the different "peerage" books are sufficient as sources. Merging some of those families into one article may be preferable though. Fram (talk) 21:15, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. See my comment below. Omegastar (talk) 21:30, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: A bad faith nomination used to harass another editor. Joe Chill (talk) 23:00, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. He would have been a member of the Second Estate of the pre-Union Parliament of Scotland and would therefore meet WP:POLITICIAN.  young  american  (wtf?) 01:51, 12 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep and break out the snow shovel for the above reasons. B figura  (talk) 03:19, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete In reading the article itself, I cannot see that this person did anything of any significance. I know that the royalty fans have fashioned a policy  that all cousins of a King get a free pass, but that doesn't look to be the reason.  Maybe there's an article that tells us all we want to know about the Earls of Glencairn where he can be venerated.   Seriously, what am I missing?  What's he in here for?  Mandsford (talk) 16:43, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep/Speedy close AfD was not done in good faith  TheWeak Willed   (T * G) 00:55, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Talk of bad faith aside, keep as a member of the Parliament of Scotland, and would therefore meet WP:POLITICIAN, per Youngamerican. Bearian (talk) 15:30, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Clearly meets WP:POLITICIAN. Edward321 (talk) 00:07, 18 September 2009 (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.