Talk:Nicholas Knatchbull

message: There is noting of note here that could not be contained within the Louis Mountbatten, 1st Earl Mountbatten of Burma article. Anyone agree/disagree?--Vintagekits 16:56, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are separate articles for other relatively minor royals. I don't see any real reason why this one shouldn't have a separate article as well. His death is certainly notable, as is his status as a relative of the royal family. --Bookworm857158367 18:19, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He is not notable himself according to WP:N and everything is contained within this article is already contained within the Louis Mountbatten, 1st Earl Mountbatten of Burma article so there is no need for this one.--Vintagekits 18:27, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In light of the many dreary articles established by yourself with reference to terrorists I think they prove that, as they are notable, the decent, innocent, victims of terrorism - especially when high-profile, are also notable.  Quid pro quo and all that.--Counter-revolutionary 18:30, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: P.s the murders of Prince Louis & his family was not one, singular, murder; it was individuals who died, this requires individual articles.--Counter-revolutionary 18:34, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Firstly as per usual watch your tone please! Secondly, you are actually incorrect I could have resurect the Declan Arthurs article, the Gerry O'Callaghan article, the Séamus Donnelly articles which were merged to the Provisional IRA East Tyrone Brigade and I felt that as that article provided all the information already then there was no need to have them. Actually this article should be deleted and Nicholas Knatchbull should be a redirected to Louis Mountbatten, 1st Earl Mountbatten of Burma.--Vintagekits 18:46, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No it shouldn't.  At the very worst there should be a separate arcticle for the incident, "The Massacre of the Mountbattens". --Counter-revolutionary 18:51, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The whole article is almost word for word in the "Death" section of the Louis Mountbatten, 1st Earl Mountbatten of Burma - what is there is this article that isnt in the Louis Mountbatten, 1st Earl Mountbatten of Burma article? --Vintagekits 18:54, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Well good luck with that article yeah. However, this person isnt notable and should be merged or redirected.--Vintagekits 19:05, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Right if you finally disagree with its merger then I am going to nominate it for deletion ok.--Vintagekits 23:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article says nothing about the poor child, except naming his relatives and stating when he died. I think that deletion is in order. His surviving brother, the Honorable Timothy Knatchbull,... now, has he done anything with his life that warrants an article? --Amandajm 08:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia seems to have set a precedent that people can become notable by virtue of dying.  See the countless articles created and/or contributed to by User:Vintagekits on IRA terrorists, for instance. --Counter-revolutionary 09:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree, there is nothing of note within this article that is not already contained within the Mountabatten article.Ghandi's Flip-flop303 13:30, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Nah, I'm not proposing merging him to Dan's article, as that's a bit of an unnatural merge target. I'm proposing a merge to his father's article - John Knatchbull, 7th Baron Brabourne, where in fact all the relevant information already is! 2 lines of K303 12:58, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good - craic on! .Felchingmania XIIor not 13:30, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Last call for any objections? 2 lines of K303 13:51, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge