Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mary Grey, Baroness Grey de Wilton
- 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 William Grey, 13th Baron Grey de Wilton. Guerillero Parlez Moi 22:13, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Mary Grey, Baroness Grey de Wilton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
A purely genealogical entry. No other coverage exists. Wikipedia is not a genealogy database. Surtsicna (talk) 21:39, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Royalty and nobility, United Kingdom, and England. Surtsicna (talk) 21:39, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
- Looks like a candidate for merge (into William Grey, 13th Baron Grey de Wilton) rather than delete? I'm not sure how clear it is that "no other coverage exists" but the existing article does not currently demonstrate independent notability. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:28, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
- Please read again: no coverage other than genealogical publications. Surtsicna (talk) 16:19, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
- I can and indeed did read what you wrote, but you have not convinced me that you have combed every academic library and oop local history book for details on the subject. (The 16th century is not like the 9th, where the number of surviving sources is extremely small and one can do an exhaustive search.) If someone does so, and finds significant coverage, there's no prejudice to an article, but until then a merge seems the best course. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:11, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
- I do not think such an expectation is realistic. In any case, I care not whether it is merged or deleted. Surtsicna (talk) 19:33, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
- I can and indeed did read what you wrote, but you have not convinced me that you have combed every academic library and oop local history book for details on the subject. (The 16th century is not like the 9th, where the number of surviving sources is extremely small and one can do an exhaustive search.) If someone does so, and finds significant coverage, there's no prejudice to an article, but until then a merge seems the best course. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:11, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
- Please read again: no coverage other than genealogical publications. Surtsicna (talk) 16:19, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
- I agree with the above merge EmilySarah99 (talk) 07:41, 17 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.