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 (closed by non-admin) per consensus. RMHED (talk) 21:09, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

William Willoughby, 1st Baron Willoughby of Parham[edit]

William Willoughby, 1st Baron Willoughby of Parham (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

The article does not establish the significance of the person. Titles alone do not establish significance. ++Arx Fortis (talk) 16:58, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep Asserts notability by his peerage, which means specifically he provided a service to the King of England at the time, to get the peerage. Also the 3rd and 5th Barons of the peerage are in Wikipedia. Clearly the article should be kept, cleaned, wikied, the usual. scope_creep (talk) 17:05, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. His status as Baron would have made him notable at the time, and since notability is not temporary (on Wikipedia), that should be sufficient. According to this he was also a member of parliament and a peer.--Michig (talk) 17:12, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep first to hold this title, so notable for that if nothing else. RMHED (talk) 17:36, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Being a member of parliament as per the above link makes this an easy keep per WP:BIO, this should be added to article or tagged for expansion. Davewild (talk) 19:27, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Snowball keep per above, article just needs some TLC. Easily a keep per the fact that he was a member of parliament, baron, etc. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:37, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Since the title was created for him and his father was not a peer he must have done something to earn it. Peerages were not just handed out in Tudor times.Moheroy (talk) 22:31, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A quick google lookup found this [1] which seems to imply some notability. I don't have time right now but this information could easily be used to improve the article. Moheroy (talk) 22:34, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep First Barons are notable by definition. Find one who wasn't (eg the sons of Charles II) and they are notable because they were given titles for no real reason. The title Baron Willoughby of Parham was created for him in 1547. Victuallers (talk) 23:05, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Obvious keep and a time wasting nomination. Nick mallory (talk) 23:09, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but tag as a stub - Some one thought him notable at the time or he would not have been created a baron. The problem is that the article is a stub, which no one has thought to expand. The solution is to tag it now, in the hope that some one will expand it. It should certainly not be deleted. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:35, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletions. —Peterkingiron (talk) 23:35, 19 November 2007 (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.