Lordship of Hasley: Some of the content is salvageable, but a lot is too vague or too inaccurate to warrant keeping, and there is a paragraph of what looks like self-promotion in the middle.  I am suggesting deletion for the article itself because the topic Lordship of Hasley is not notable.  Manor of Hasley on the other hand might be notable if written in the right way but that seems unlikely to happen as long as the original author(s) want to focus on the "lordship" and slant the content in that direction.  It would also be possible to merge the useful parts to the two relevant village articles ( Thornton, Buckinghamshire and Radclive .  Ingratis ( talk ) 10:14, 8 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and United Kingdom .  Ingratis ( talk ) 10:14, 8 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete -- Being lord of a manor is not a title of nobility, though it might qualify the owner to have the status of a gentleman or even squire.   The article seems to be about Thornton Hall and the article might be repurposed as a history of that mansion, currently occupied by a girls school Thornton College , but that article redirects to the village article Thornton, Buckinghamshire .   I do not think that there is much worth rescuing to merge elsewhere.  Peterkingiron ( talk ) 11:21, 8 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I appreciate your feedback and every exchange is an opportunity to learn.  This was my first attempt at starting an article, "poor quality" sources were unintentionally so.  I have no personal agenda with focusing on the "lorship" topic, and the focus was made after researching uncovered the Banes article.  I am here to learn, and if the gurus find my contribution unsuitable, then so be it.  Cambridge Prof Scholars ( talk ) 15:38, 8 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:06, 8 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : Is the manor (Thornton College) notable?  That could be a strong WP:ATD if it is.  Curbon7 ( talk ) 23:00, 8 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Probably not, and I agree with Peterkingiron that actually there is not a great deal worth saving.  The Thornton College website makes - as far I can see - no mention at all of Hasley, and the former Hasley-related website, which is what the claim of a connection is apparently based on, has clearly lapsed and now redirects to a site advertising a London hotel, so there is no reason to mention Hasley under the college.  Thornton College has a paragraph under Thornton (Buckinghamshire) because it occupies the former Thornton manor house but may not be notable in its own right.  The only usable sources in this article are the VCH and the Baines article.  I've already added them Baines to the Thornton article (VCH was there already) as a note to the effect that formerly but wrongly Hasley was thought to be located there, which seems to be all that is required.  Ingratis ( talk ) 23:42, 8 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Further comment Baines (clearly a RS) has shown that the old identification with Thornton is clearly wrong and that Hasley has been subsumed into Radclive.   If a redirect were needed it would be to Radclive , but I still think that the best solution is plain deletion.  As Thornton College educates Catholic girls from 3 to 18, it qualifies as a secondary school, which we might regard as notable, but this article is unlikely to be capable of being repurposed for that.   The claim to be 18th or 19th Lord of Hasley is plain original research .  Peterkingiron ( talk ) 12:09, 9 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, RL0919 ( talk ) 12:50, 15 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Clarifying nomination above - delete - inadequate sourcing and no notability - fails GNG.   I agree with Peterkingiron on the undesirability of redirecting.  Ingratis ( talk ) 13:13, 15 September 2023 (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.

Discussion outcome: delete