Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Charles Carnegie, Lord Carnegie: Difference between revisions

< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion Browse history interactivelyContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 23:48, 27 August 2009 editDavid.Mestel (talk \| contribs)Rollbackers5,396 edits Creating deletion discussion page for Charles Carnegie, Lord Carnegie. (TW)		Latest revision as of 17:11, 2 March 2022 edit undoMalnadachBot (talk \| contribs)11,637,095 editsm Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)Tag: AWB
(11 intermediate revisions by 9 users not shown)
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{#ifeq:{{#titleparts:{{FULLPAGENAME}}\|2}}\|Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Log\|<span id="Charles Carnegie, Lord Carnegie"></span>{{collapse top\|bg=#F3F9FF\|1=]\|padding=1px}}\|}}
			<div class="boilerplate metadata afd vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: #F3F9FF; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
			:''The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a ]). No further edits should be made to this page.''
			<!--Template:Afd top

			Note: If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to re-nominate an article for deletion, you must manually edit the AfD nomination links in order to create a new discussion page using the name format of ]. When you create the new discussion page, please provide a link to this old discussion in your nomination. -->

			The result was '''delete'''. '''\''' ] '''/''' (]) 21:27, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
	===]===		===]===
	{{REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD\|B}}

	:{{la\|Charles Carnegie, Lord Carnegie}} (<span class="plainlinks">]}}&action=delete}} delete]</span>) – <includeonly>(])</includeonly><noinclude>(])</noinclude>		:{{la\|Charles Carnegie, Lord Carnegie}} (<span class="plainlinks">]}}&action=delete}} delete]</span>) – <includeonly>(])</includeonly><noinclude>(])</noinclude>
	:({{findsources\|Charles Carnegie, Lord Carnegie}})		:({{findsources\|Charles Carnegie, Lord Carnegie}})
	Non-notable - only claim to notability is as a presumptive future Duke, and former ]. Unable to find any substantive references from Google (other than entries in peerage directories). Unsourced BLP, tagged since June. To the extent that coverage is merited, can be (and is) mentioned in ] and ]. ]<sup>(])</sup> 23:48, 27 August 2009 (UTC)		Non-notable - only claim to notability is as a presumptive future Duke, and former ]. Unable to find any substantive references from Google (other than entries in peerage directories). Unsourced BLP, tagged since June. To the extent that coverage is merited, can be (and is) mentioned in ] and ]. ]<sup>(])</sup> 23:48, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
			*'''Merge/redirect''' - Why would you go for '''delete''' when a merge/redirect to ] is a perfectly legitimate proposal on the talk page, and can be accomplished easily and quickly without exercising the community with an ]? Thanks <span style="font-family:Times New Roman;">] <sup>]</sup></span> 00:05, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
			*:Because it would mean totally unnecessarily leaving the text of an unsourced BLP present in the history, which, while not the end of the world (since it's not derogatory) is probably not in principle a good thing to do, other things being equal, as they are in this instance. Perhaps I should have specified '''Delete then redirect''' in the nom. ]<sup>(])</sup> 00:37, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
			*'''Delete''' as non-notable. There's a difference between a merge/redirect, and a mention (which is all CC rated in the first place). If someone is not notable enough for an article, then I see no reason that they should have their own redirect page either. When the article was created, it was for a kid not quite 15, who happened to be the son the Earl of Southesk. It's an unlikely search term, and although redirects may be cheap, our standards should not be. Good call, nominator. ] (]) 18:39, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
			*<small class="delsort-notice">'''Note''': This debate has been included in the ]. <!--Template:Delsort--></small> <small>-- ] ] 02:50, 30 August 2009 (UTC)</small>
			*<small class="delsort-notice">'''Note''': This debate has been included in the ]. <!--Template:Delsort--></small> <small>-- ] ] 02:51, 30 August 2009 (UTC)</small>
			*'''Delete''' I agree with the nom/Mandsford on this - a merge is overkill as all that is required is a brief mention. ] (]) 14:55, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
			*'''Delete'''. As noted above, subject has not received coverage in reliable sources.--] (]) 19:43, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
			:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a ]). No further edits should be made to this page.'' <!--Template:Afd bottom--></div>
			{{#ifeq:{{#titleparts:{{FULLPAGENAME}}\|2}}\|Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Log\|{{collapse bottom}}\|}}

Latest revision as of 17:11, 2 March 2022

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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 21:27, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Charles Carnegie, Lord Carnegie

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable - only claim to notability is as a presumptive future Duke, and former Page of Honour. Unable to find any substantive references from Google (other than entries in peerage directories). Unsourced BLP, tagged since June. To the extent that coverage is merited, can be (and is) mentioned in Duke of Fife and Page of Honour. David 23:48, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Merge/redirect - Why would you go for delete when a merge/redirect to David Carnegie, Earl of Southesk is a perfectly legitimate proposal on the talk page, and can be accomplished easily and quickly without exercising the community with an AFD? Thanks ShoesssS 00:05, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Because it would mean totally unnecessarily leaving the text of an unsourced BLP present in the history, which, while not the end of the world (since it's not derogatory) is probably not in principle a good thing to do, other things being equal, as they are in this instance. Perhaps I should have specified Delete then redirect in the nom. David 00:37, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Delete as non-notable. There's a difference between a merge/redirect, and a mention (which is all CC rated in the first place). If someone is not notable enough for an article, then I see no reason that they should have their own redirect page either. When the article was created, it was for a kid not quite 15, who happened to be the son the Earl of Southesk. It's an unlikely search term, and although redirects may be cheap, our standards should not be. Good call, nominator. Mandsford (talk) 18:39, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 02:50, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 02:51, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Delete I agree with the nom/Mandsford on this - a merge is overkill as all that is required is a brief mention. Eusebeus (talk) 14:55, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete. As noted above, subject has not received coverage in reliable sources.--Pink Bull (talk) 19:43, 3 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.