Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Graham, 3rd Earl of Menteith


 * 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. Stifle (talk) 15:06, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

William Graham, 3rd Earl of Menteith

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Notability of subject not established. Wavehunter (talk) 18:06, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. There seems to be a current consensus that all hereditary Earls are notable.  young  american  (wtf?) 18:44, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment/question: I was not aware of this consensus. Notability (people) says nothing on aristocrats, but does say that being a family member of somebody notable does not make one notable. Do you have a source? --Wavehunter (talk) 03:04, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * In this case, Graham would have been a member of the Parliament of Scotland's second estate as an Earl. Since he would have, therefore, been a member of a national legislature, he (and most other similar nobles before various reforms) would meet WP:POLITICIAN.  young  american  (wtf?) 11:22, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you. The page has expanded since I tagged it. Hopefully this extra information will be added and thereby establish the subject's notability. I would add it myself, but do not have access to a reference. The information is on Wikipedia here and here, but neither mention includes a citation. I found a reference in Peter Hume Brown's History of Scotland to the present time stating Earls sat in the Scottish Parliament, but this was from the reign of Charles I onward - that is, a century too late. Thanks again. --Wavehunter (talk) 14:55, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Cool. It looks like you've found some places where a "citation needed" tag is in order. I'll dig through some old history books soon and see if I can find a good source.  young  american  (wtf?) 14:15, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions.  -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:58, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Redirect/Merge somewhere? Per the article, the guy hasnt done anything except being born into royalty Corpx (talk) 06:13, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable and verifiable even after 500 years. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:53, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per Richard Arthur Norton. You might have thought that almost anyone we know something about today who lived five hundred years ago was "notable" for that alone and there is clearly a long standing convention of maintaining peerage articles. Ben   Mac  Dui  07:25, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect/merge to Earl of Menteith, unless someone comes forward with meaningful information on the subject (what did he do?) other from stud book connections. WP:POLITICIAN should not be invoked unless there's solid evidence that the person did, indeed, engage in politics of his period (he was a peer for only five or six years). Even if merely sitting on the parliament bench is a perennial notability clue (oh really?) chances are that he, actually, did not. A well-developed family article is far better than a bunch of unter-stubs. NVO (talk) 14:51, 2 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.