Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Earldom of Ness
but not because a more reliable source doesn't back this up. If established authorities disagree on something, then Wikipedia should cover both points of view. But the problem here is that the evidence of this Earldom of Ness doesn't even qualify as verifiable. All we have is one person's incidental mention of a district of Ness, which may have been lifted from a 1933 document but is nowhere near reliable. Found another incidental mention in Gbooks but still not enough to reliably claim such as earldom existed without substantial . Should someone did up better coverage (preferably some decent coverage in secondary sources) we can revisit this
— User:Chris, 11:26, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Stance: delete
Cited policy: WP:SYNTH (Wikipedia:No original research)