Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William De Ow

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 of the debate was No Consensus:Keep. Voice of All^T|@|ESP 23:18, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] William De Ow

I don't believe that being a cousin to a king of England makes someone instantly notable, especially not when all what he seems to have done is having owned a manor, which wasn't even all that spectacular ("grade two"). SoothingR^(pour) 14:17, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - Facts about this gentleman are already elucidated in the Stonehouse article. Endomion 15:06, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, if he lived today there would be no question of his significance. If someone wants to redirect to Stonehouse, Gloucestershire, that would be okay but not my first choice. JYolkowski // talk 19:00, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment Reserving my opinion for now. He seems to have done more than own a manor, as this site [1] names him as a rebel against William Rufus. There is a question as to whether more than that can be found to put in the article. -- Dalbury^(Talk) 23:07, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, he is likely to have been a notable person in his own time and place. Merge and redirect somewhere later if there is nothing more to be said, but I don't see the point in not keeping it until then. Tupsharru 23:57, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as per JYolkowski Jcuk 00:06, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment - Verifiability for this character is very sketchy: the only real verifiable information about him is that he existed and owned land in Dorset in 1086. Other information available online seems to echo one or two modern sources and to be related primarily to gealogical research and local mythology, neither of which are always the most reputable when it comes to historical accuracy; I would be tempted to suggest that the article was written by someone promoting Stonehouse, Gloucestershire (witness the tone of that article as well). - squibix 15:31, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment - It does come down to whether any notability can be verified. There are all too many sites that present 'facts' that have no traceable history. -- Dalbury^(Talk) 15:55, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - notability not verifiable. If someone comes up with a decent reference establishing notability beyond being listed in the Doomsday Book, I'll reconsider. -- Dalbury^(Talk) 15:55, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. According to Thomas Cox's Magna Britannia, Antiqua et Nova (c1738), he was accused of treason, demanded trial by combat, failed, was blinded and dismembered. [2]. I've added that to the article. -- JLaTondre 17:23, 26 December 2005 (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.