Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Armorial of Lord High Chancellors of Great Britain

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. It was a little unclear whether this was based as a "this X of Y" shouldn't exist or "there aren't sources on the topic" notability issue. The first was specifically refuted, and without the latter being clearly raised, it didn't seem to have been addressed. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:48, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Armorial of Lord High Chancellors of Great Britain[edit]

[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)

No indication why this would be a notable subject. People have armorials (or not), and people are Lord High Chancellor; but these two characteristics have no relation to each other. A trivial intersection of facts about people. Fram (talk) 08:14, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 08:14, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 08:14, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Given they are all painted on the walls of the House of Lords, this is not a "trivial intersection". -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:49, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:49, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:53, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:53, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Necrothesp. Deus et lex (talk) 12:03, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Necrothesp, so their recognition proves it so. No Swan So Fine (talk) 23:18, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Necrothesp. jp×g 12:29, 23 November 2020 (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.