Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles Fitzgeoffrey

:{{la|Charles Fitzgeoffrey}} ([{{fullurl:Charles Fitzgeoffrey|wpReason={{urlencode: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles Fitzgeoffrey}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

The first sentence said about the subject: "was a minor Elizabethan poet and clergyman". [http://www.google.com/search?hl=la&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-GB%3Aofficial&hs=nGz&q=%22Charles+Fitzgeoffrey%22+-wikipedia&btnG=Quaere This search] didn't satisfy me either. Alexius08 (talk) 09:35, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. I'm assuming that this article has been nominated because the subject is considered to be non-notable, although that isn't made clear in the nomination. The fact that Fitzgeoffrey has an ODNB entry implies that he's a "significant, influential or notorious figure", which is precisely what WP:BIO requires. Tevildo (talk) 10:11, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
• Keep as per Tevildo. If he's notable enough for a print encyclopedia, he's notable enough for Wikipedia. Edward321 (talk) 14:14, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
• Keep What's minor in ultimate historical terms is still unquestionably notable, if the ODNB thinks it's not too minor to be included. Notability is much less than famous. Everyone they give an article to should be included here. The word "minor" in the lede paragraph however needs to be sourced, presumably to them. DGG (talk) 20:24, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

: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.