Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hugh I de Audley

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 merge to Hugh de Audley, 1st Earl of Gloucester. Black Kite 01:10, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hugh I de Audley

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

There doesn't seem to be any significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. He appears in various genealogies, etc, because his son was an earl, perhaps. See wp:n for more on notability and sources to back it up. ErikHaugen (talk) 16:34, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability is not inherited, and Wikipedia is not a genealogy site like Ancestry.com. Edison (talk) 18:49, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per Edison. - RobertMel (talk) 23:19, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Common sense when dealing with that period of history is not to assume non-notability but the opposite - non-notables didn't tend to be recorded. Wikipedia is not a genealogy site, but removing blinkers might open other lines of approach/thought. If confronted with a name with "de" at this period it's worth checking the equivalent name with "of" ie Hugh of Audley. Bear in mind multiple alternative spellings - spelling hadn't standardised so H of A's wife can be Iseulde, Isolt, Isolte Mortimer. If H of A was married to a Mortimer and the father of a son ennobled as Duke of Gloucester at this period he can prima facie be assumed to have been significantly involved in the politics of the time. Check dates to confirm which H of A is being referred to in any instance. Notability may well be better confirmed from books than internet. Deletion should be left to someone with a bit of historical competence rather than amateurs. Opbeith (talk) 23:29, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to address this in my nomination. I think it's pretty clear that his name is going to show up in genealogies and the like just because of his relatives. see Audley-Stanley_family - I'm not suggesting we remove his name from that page, and I'm not questioning the notability of the Audley family. I get your point about assuming notability; but in this case we have an obvious explanation for why a non-notable individual is recorded. Additionally, wp guidelines are pretty clear that we do not assume notability unless there is evidence - in other words, even if I _know_ something is notable, I must have secondary sources in order to have a page on the subject. So I think it is best to follow WP:GNG despite the antiquity of the subject. I can't agree with your "rather than amateurs" remark: there are tools and standards we can use to have this discussion, and I am not interested in recusing myself from areas that I don't have degrees/etc in. This is Wikipedia, "anyone can edit." :) ErikHaugen (talk) 00:41, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately people are deterred from editing and improving once the article's gone! nb the "of" or the "de" may also be omitted. Opbeith (talk) 12:28, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into his son's article. (GregJackP (talk) 05:11, 18 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Keep in the hope that some one can find something more on him. The Audleys were (I think) a significnat gentry family in the area. All we have at present is a genealogical stub, from which notability is not clear. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:45, 21 February 2010 (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.