Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edward Earl (2nd nomination)

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 delete. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 21:38, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Earl

AfDs for this article:

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

I (obviously) do not have access to archives in Jamaica, but this doesn't sound like a very notable person. I can't find any more sources than those on the page, and it seems to me that we would need more of a biography than apparently exists for this person to meet the GNG. I don't think that being wealthy is enough, but I'm interested to hear why I am wrong if others have a strong !keep argument. JMWt (talk) 21:17, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Jamaica. JMWt (talk) 21:17, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:23, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment just to note that the previous AfD discussion was about a different person with the same name and the page was deleted long before the current one was created. JMWt (talk) 21:36, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:34, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- It is always difficult to judge from a stub, but I find it hard to believe that any individual planter is notable, unless he did something else that is notable. The sole source seems to be a database of slave owners and relatives. I see little prospect of this ever becoming more than genealogy. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:59, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The linked will is interesting, but there don't seem to be other sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BruceThomson (talk • contribs) 10:10, 1 January 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.