Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lord Frederick

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 keep. (non-admin closure) sst✈^(discuss) 10:11, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lord Frederick

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

I can't see why there is a dab page for Lord First Name when none of these men would be called Lord Frederick but rather by their last name. This just makes search harder. Also delete redirects Lord Fred and Lord Freddie. This is similar to the Bishop George and Father George nominations earlier. Legacypac (talk) 07:43, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – As none of these people are peers but are using Lord as a courtesy title, one would not normally refer to them by their surname (e.g, "Lord Doe") but rather by their full name or given name (e.g, "Lord John Doe" or "Lord John"). For example, see Debrett's advice on addressing the son of a duke. Graham (talk) 08:28, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. -- Ascii002 (talk · contribs · guestbook) 08:44, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. sst✈^discuss 09:24, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

: Interesting re the naming protocols as per Debrett's, and I basically agree - however this seems to suggest that the correct way to use this courtesy title is "Lord firstname surname". Is anyone really going to be looking for Lord Frederick Windsor via Lord Frederick - and what about all those other sons of nobility that are not listed? Are we to have a disamb page for every firstname with a courtesy title? Dr Nick, Mr Ted, Professor Pete? That can't be a workable solution, surely. JMWt (talk) 12:25, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My first instinct was delete, but after further thought, I'm undecided. This convention does pop up in 19th century English literature, and we do have lists like Saint Francis (disambiguation) and General Lee (disambiguation), which include various people. On the other hand, it's extremely unlikely that a modern person would search that way, and it would open the floodgates to Lord Henry (disambiguation), Lady Alice (disambiguation), etc. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:49, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In actual fact many of these people will be referred to in contemporary sources only by their title and first name. It will frequently either be assumed that the reader knows their surname from the context or their surname will be buried elsewhere in the source and all subsequent uses will be this abbreviated style. I therefore think it's a perfectly reasonable disambiguation page. The nominator doesn't appear to understand that this style is only used for the sons of a duke or marquess, and peers and their relatives rarely used or were referred to by their surnames unless disambiguation was needed. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:58, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
See related https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Lord_Edward Legacypac (talk) 09:06, 24 November 2015 (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.