Donald Maclean, 1st Laird of Brolas: Clarityfiend ( talk ) 08:54, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason (the 3rd Laird of Torloisk has a second genealogical book reference, also written by a Maclean): Lauchlan Maclean, 2nd Laird of Brolas ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) Donald Maclean, 3rd Laird of Brolas ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) Lachlan Og Maclean, 1st Laird of Torloisk ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) Hector Maclean, 2nd Laird of Torloisk ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) Lachlan Maclean, 3rd Laird of Torloisk ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) Donald Maclean, 5th Laird of Torloisk ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) John Dubh Maclean, 1st Laird of Morvern ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) Ewen Maclean, 9th Laird of Ardgour ( edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views ) Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Scotland .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:54, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete the 2009 output of an editor with extremely problematic understanding of sourcing , these do not meet WP:NOTGENEALOGY .  ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk ) 10:08, 13 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] keep/merge Arguments for deletion are A) only one source, but the ones I've looked at have more than one.  B) The last name of the author is the same as the BIO topic.  C) The author of the articles had significant issues with notability, which is not a reason for deletion.   Things appear to meet WP:N and no accurate and policy/guideline based rule has been given and at least some of the articles appear to meet WP:N.   That said, merging topics by the area they were Laird of would be a reasonable way forward.  Or into an article on such areas.  Hobit ( talk ) 14:04, 14 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Rebuttal .  BIO isn't a "policy/guideline"?  Also, I don't know which articles you've been looking at, but - as I stated - only one has a second (dubiuous) source, and both being written by Macleans implies that they're not neutral/independent.  I've removed one entry, as I didn't notice that the 2nd Laird represented his shire.  Clarityfiend ( talk ) 10:28, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] [13] has three sources.   And I don't think being a descendent of someone from 400 years ago makes John_Patterson_MacLean a non-independent author.   I did miss the link to WP:BIO due to the (fairly amusing, I will admit) joke, my fault.   Still, I tend to believe that 100s year old historical figures should have a much lower bar for inclusion and I stick by the notion that merging folks by area they were laird of would be a fine way forward.  Hobit ( talk ) 16:08, 16 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete -- While I have only checked the primary article nominated, I see nothing in this but genealogical info.   I see no substantial reason to object to the one source for COI or as a non-RS.   However Bio-articles need to record what a person has done, not merely that they existed and had relatives.   Being a laird is not a title of nobility, only gentry.   My reason for deletion is that the subject is NN.   Possibly the subjects could be listed in the articles on the places of which they were lairds.  Peterkingiron ( talk ) 17:42, 19 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  07:27, 20 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  07:26, 27 November 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: no consensus