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. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lord Edgecombe[edit]

Lord Edgecombe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Delete: Non-notable one-line article stub. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 17:29, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Wasn't he entitled then to a seat in the House of Lords, granting an assumption of inherent notability as a member of a national legislature? He gets some coverage at Google Books. It looks likke there are sources for improving the article. Seems to satisfy WP:BIO. His residence was written about quite a bit,[1] as was his patronage of Reynolds, a world class artist,[2] unless there are multiple individuals of that name. If it is an heriditary title, it is likely still notable. Edison (talk) 18:14, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - There is much to be said about the man, not least the notable ecentricity of paying the poor to dig pointless tunnels as a form of poverty relief. The family owned a park in Plymouth, notable for spooky sculpture and topiary. Yes, it's a stub, but it is not incapable of expansion. I, for one, did not know that he was a benefactor of poets. I don't think we slaughter our children on the grounds they are not adults. --Brunnian (talk) 19:10, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By the way I find the last line "I don't think we slaughter our children on the grounds they are not adults" to be really in very poor taste. This is not an abortion polemic. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 05:13, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, sorry if I offended. It is a metaphor, much as authors are advised to kill what they love to improve their prose. I think the jump to the subject of abortion is a leap I can't comprehend.--Brunnian (talk) 02:19, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Expandable. & referenceable, see the above. "lord" does not necessarily imply a member of the House of Lords, by the way-- the title is used in other ways as well, as for the sons of dukes -- see Lord. The title probably needs to be changed to "Mount Edgecombe" per MOS DGG ( talk ) 03:57, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, if this person is so notable, then why does the article still consist of one line without even a reference? I think that those who claim the person is notable should improve the page to confirm their assertions. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 05:13, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We are here to discuss whether the subject should have an article, based on policies and guidelines. If you feel that the article needs editing then WP:SOFIXIT explains what to do. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:26, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. OK, not exactly a model Wikipedia article, and certainly people should not be going around creating one-sentence articles. But the good Lord E. is clearly a notable notable. (couldn't resist, sorry).--JohnnyB256 (talk) 23:24, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.