- 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 Procedurally close This AfD was created improperly and never transcldued and the original nominator no longer thinks the article should be deleted. * Pppery * it has begun... 15:17, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
Well, something got messed up again and the nomination page did not load as expected. Anyway, I believe this article should be deleted because the topic has not attracted significant coverage in reliable sources ( WP:SIGCOV), thus failing WP:GNG and WP:BASIC guidelines. Wikipedia should not have an article just because he is a great-great-nephew of the mother of the British queen ( WP:INVALIDBIO). He is simply too obscure. Surtsicna ( talk) 19:15, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
Something does appear to have screwed up, I suspect the AFD software cannot cope with a title of this length. Actually, I think you will find that Earls would be regarded as inherently notable. However, if you really want to persist with your call for deletion I suggest we may have to move this article to a shorter title, e.g. drop the "and Kinghorne". PatGallacher ( talk) 19:23, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
@ Surtsicna and PatGallacher: I stumbled across this old nomination while doing some cleanup. If either of you still think this article should be deleted two years later I suggest starting a new AfD. * Pppery * it has begun... 02:16, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
- Oh, thanks, * Pppery *. It seems the guy has since decided to become a registered sexual predator, which has attracted enough coverage for us to keep the article. Surtsicna ( talk) 15:14, 15 October 2022 (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.
- 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 Procedurally close This AfD was created improperly and never transcldued and the original nominator no longer thinks the article should be deleted. * Pppery * it has begun... 15:17, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
Well, something got messed up again and the nomination page did not load as expected. Anyway, I believe this article should be deleted because the topic has not attracted significant coverage in reliable sources ( WP:SIGCOV), thus failing WP:GNG and WP:BASIC guidelines. Wikipedia should not have an article just because he is a great-great-nephew of the mother of the British queen ( WP:INVALIDBIO). He is simply too obscure. Surtsicna ( talk) 19:15, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
Something does appear to have screwed up, I suspect the AFD software cannot cope with a title of this length. Actually, I think you will find that Earls would be regarded as inherently notable. However, if you really want to persist with your call for deletion I suggest we may have to move this article to a shorter title, e.g. drop the "and Kinghorne". PatGallacher ( talk) 19:23, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
@ Surtsicna and PatGallacher: I stumbled across this old nomination while doing some cleanup. If either of you still think this article should be deleted two years later I suggest starting a new AfD. * Pppery * it has begun... 02:16, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
- Oh, thanks, * Pppery *. It seems the guy has since decided to become a registered sexual predator, which has attracted enough coverage for us to keep the article. Surtsicna ( talk) 15:14, 15 October 2022 (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.