Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edmund Nelson

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 delete. I've discounted the votes based on parentage (irrelevant in itself), comparisons with Pokemon, and the existence of a portrait by a famous artist (which is even less relevant than having a famous son). —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 20:07, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edmund Nelson

The article doesn't assert any kind of notability, unless there's something I'm missing. _{talk to} JD ^{wants e-mail} 18:27, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. I think the parentage of Horatio Nelson is notable. --Cassavau 18:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete becase fame doesn't rub off on relatives. -- Whpq 19:18, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. This is a useful research reference for Horatio Nelson. Having raised one of the towering figures of British history is itself a notable achievement. --Pagana 21:49, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Besides genealogical data, there is absolutely no useful biographical information in this article. The ODNB has no article on Horatio Nelson's parents but mention what we need to know about his family in the beginning of his article. No need to delete this, but merge and redirect either to Horatio Nelson or to Earl Nelson which is about the title awarded to the admiral's brother. The same thing should be done with the mother, Catherine Suckling. Tupsharru 05:05, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, —Xyrael / 08:44, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete He isn't notable. Such information as is useful should be included in the Horatio Nelson article. BTLizard 11:04, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Sufficiently notable for a paperless encyclopedia that includes an article for every Pokemon. Flying Jazz 19:35, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nn, the closest thing is his rectorate, and that's far off. The comparisons about Pokemon get annoying with respect to historical articles--just because it happened a long time ago, or a person lived a long time ago, does not mean notability. We should be careful to not make determinations so eruditically detached, yet at the same time, retain suspicion about that popular culture which attacks wikipedia. There's enough articles to be deleted in both category, nn historical, and nn popular culture.-Kmaguir1 20:39, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep as a relevant article to Wikipedia's coverage of Horatio Nelson. The content in the article would be out of place if included in the main (FA status) Horatio article, however it works in the context as a wiki-link. Of course Edmund's notability is tied into his son and all serious collections about Horatio Nelson includes references to his father. The National Maritime Museum even includes a portrait (referenced in article) of Edmund done by the notable English painter William Beechy in their Horatio Nelson collection. I think the fact that a very prominent museum deems that there is value in including this portrait in connection with their work on Horatio Nelson is very pertinent. As a "paperless" Encyclopedia who obviously does not have the space or financial limitations that a Museum would have, doesn't it seems foolish to have higher standards then the National Maritime Museum for content inclusion? Agne 18:53, 8 September 2006 (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.