Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew de Leslie (d. c. 1352)

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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:21, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew de Leslie (d. c. 1352)[edit]

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

fails WP:ANYBIO. Nominated for deletion following unexplained deprodding. Nothing found in a WP:BEFORE and the only source is a family history written by a member of the family so not independent. Domdeparis (talk) 10:02, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - anything worth salvaging can be merged into his father's page at Andrew de Leslie (d. c. 1324) ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 12:01, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability.Dunarc (talk) 19:31, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 16:52, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 16:52, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it looks to me like there is a a whole series of these going back the pedigree that lack any notability. With the exception of Andrew I, whose signing of the treaty of Arbroath makes him more notable than the rest, the others just receive passing reference, beyond the 1869 family history and online genealogy websites, none of which represent WP:RSs. I think a NOTGENEALOGY argument could be made for the majority of them: Norman de Leslie, Norino Leslie, Norman Leslie (died 1248), Malcolm Leslie. Agricolae (talk) 17:12, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not meant to be a geneology. I would join Agricolae in supporting those other deletions as well.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:28, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would tend to agree with you the only really notable one is Andrew d. 1324. I'll see how this one goes and then bundle the others together as it is probably too late to bundle them now. Domdeparis (talk) 08:56, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unverifiable: Fails to meet WP:ANYBIO and does not otherwise meet WP:GNG. --Jack Frost (talk) 10:26, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to father -- NN. I do not think WP:V applies, as I expect the content can be verified. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:42, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Andrew de Leslie (d. c. 1352)" does not seem like a natural search term that is likely to be used (and hence need a redirect). There will be some necessary cleanup - if the son's page is deleted, there will only be one page for someone named Andrew de Leslie, thus the Andrew de Leslie disambiguation page would become superfluous and the namespace can instead be used for the father's page: Andrew de Leslie (d. c. 1324) should be renamed to the simple "Andrew de Leslie", which is the most likely search term someone uses when looking for the son anyhow. Agricolae (talk) 16:54, 26 November 2017 (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.