Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Graham, 3rd Earl of Menteith (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Jujutacular talkcontribs 21:14, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

William Graham, 3rd Earl of Menteith
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This genealogical entry on a non-notable earl violates a Wikipedia policy, WP:NOT:

Genealogical entries. Biography articles should only be for people with some sort of fame, achievement, or perhaps notoriety. Drawn Some (talk) 19:11, 11 September 2009 (UTC) DGG, my comments you are dismissing are a DIRECT QUOTE OF WIKIPEDIA POLICY WP:NOT. Are you not familiar with Wikipedia policies and guidelines on notability? I suggest you study up on them, they are very important. Or if you are aware of WP:NOT, then why do you want to ignore policy to keep articles on non-notable topics? If you disagree with consensus, please work to change it, but to ignore consensus is not appropriate. Drawn Some (talk) 20:00, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep writing about my mom would be genealogy. A well referenced article is not genealogy. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:21, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep as a discussion closed as keep a WEEK ago. Per my comment elsewhere. The nominator has twice now been brought to ANI for targetting the creator of this article (see Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive198 and Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive553 and today has either nominated, prodded, or commented in a host of discussions concerning articles created or worked on by that same editor and has done so in near copy and paste fashion: Articles for deletion/Anders Örbom, Articles for deletion/John Stewart, 2nd Earl of Atholl, Articles for deletion/Julia A. Berwind, Articles for deletion/Alexander Gordon, 3rd Earl of Huntly, and Articles for deletion/Cynthia Roche are all for articles Richard created, while Articles for deletion/Jimmy Patterson and Articles for deletion/Baron Werner Ünderbheit are ones in which Richard argued to keep first. Just look at the block from User_talk:Richard_Arthur_Norton_(1958-_) on down. You would think after two ANI threads started by two separate editors, one would not devote a flurry of edits to such articles and what seems all the more disconcerting here is saying to delete something that was merged, i.e. cannot be deleted per the GFDL, renominating someing a mere week after a "KEEP" closure, not a no consensus, but an outright keep, and as some editors have said elsewhere declaring people whose deaths received mainstream press coverage as "non-notable" all suggest something problematic going on here. I hate to comment on nominator's motives rather than individual merits of articles under discussion, but this seems too blatant. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 19:24, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Take your irrelevant feelings an emotions to the proper forum, please. Whether or not prior AFDs existed and whether or not there was proper closure or discussion at them may not be something you want to bring up to try to support keeping this article on a non-notable topic. Drawn Some (talk) 19:33, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I will start an ANI thread then. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 19:35, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep. I would do this myself if I had not participated in  earlier discussion.  Ben   Mac  Dui  19:41, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep Re-nominating 1 week after a keep with no additional reason is sufficient for a speedy keep. As for the issue involved, the nom says we should cover only "fame, achievement, or perhaps notoriety. " but these are different from  notability, as defined in WP:, which specifically excludes those as  equivalent terms.   Certainly famous people are notable, but if we restricted ourselves to that we would have a very small encyclopedia. People with major achievements that are documented in sources are certainly notable, but so are people whose achievements, however minor we individually think them, are documented sufficiently.     DGG ( talk ) 19:52, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * the actual quote from WP:N is  Article topics are required to be notable, or "worthy of notice." It is important to note that a notability determination does not necessarily depend on things like fame, importance, or the popularity of a topic—although those may enhance the acceptability of a subject that meets the guidelines explained below.    The quote from NOT:GENEALOGY you are using is "Biography articles should only be for people with some sort of fame, achievement, or perhaps notoriety. One measure of these is whether someone has been featured in several external sources (on or off-line). "  If you look at the first part, the two appear inconsistent. The resolution of this is to notice the some, which clearly to me, and to the established consensus here, means that a very little will do. It would certainly help to clarify this. But the second part shows it--"some" of this is defined as coverage by RSs, as one possibility, as well as the other possibilities in WP:N.   While I would like to change N policy a good deal, I am arguing here in straight conformity to it--on those occasions where i want to propose a reinterpretation, I say so. You are arguing against the GNG. I might join you in that, if we had some agreement about how to replace it, and if I thought there were any chance of success.      DGG ( talk ) 20:36, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I would like to add here that Drawn Some does not seem to be acting in good fate. He nominates numerous historical biographies that have only just been created. Now i ask, is Drawn Some a historian? What basis does he have in determining that a person is not notable just because he does not know anything about the subject? Wikipedia is not complete. There is still alot that needs to be added. Now, wikipedia has thousands, if not thens of thousands of articles about minor historical figures such as these. There are countless of pages about minor nobility etc. And there are countless more missing. These pages add to wikipedia and should not be deleted. Again: Wikipedia is far from complete. Furthermore Drawn Some nominates these articles almost as soon as they are created. Thereby he prevents anyone else from finding the article and adding to it. Alot of articles start off small, and become bigger. By constantly immediatly nominating anything created about minor historical figures, Drawn some is preventing this. I would also like to note that Drawnsome's entire contribution list is filled with these deletion efforts. There are no edits on articles that add anything to the articles. Drawn Some does not add anything to Wikipedia. He only removes. And drawnsome does seem focussed on RAN alot. (Keep btw) Omegastar (talk) 21:26, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep – facetious nom. Occuli (talk) 20:20, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. Everyone, this is Drawn Some, my personal wikistalker. If you have a comment about his behavior and the nomination today of what will be about a dozen of my articles please comment here. A month or so ago he nominated another dozen articles that I had created, most were speedy kept. The situation has arisen from me voting to keep articles that he had voted on to delete, or nominated to delete several months ago. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:39, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. I have added some details of his life. Sam Blacketer (talk) 20:48, 11 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.