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. Sandstein 22:03, 17 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Nicholas Harold Phillips

Nicholas Harold Phillips (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

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

This is a procedural nomination

Hello, I wonder if a user with the necessary credentials could complete the other two steps on this article? Nicholas Harold Phillips is notable only for two things- his ownership of the Luton Hoo estate, and his descent from several notable people. His ownership of Luton Hoo is a bald fact with little else to mention; per notability guidelines, 'Being related to a notable person in itself confers no degree of notability upon that person'. The article itself makes clear its lack of purpose with its opening line: 'he was a British landowner in Hertfordshire and Bedfordshire with royal connections. As a descendant of Sophia, Electress of Hanover, he was in the line of succession to the British throne.' The article consists of two sections, 'Life' and 'Ancestry', and the 'Ancestry' section is longer than the 'Life' section, which itself consists mainly of details of and links to Wikipedia articles about his aristocratic mother, his sisters' aristocratic marriages, and his own Austrian aristocrat wife. Phillips's ownership of Luton Hoo ended due to what were widely reported in reliable sources (see the article) to be severe financial problems, and his consequent suicide. The manner in which his financial problems, death, and the family's loss of Luton Hoo interrelate makes it pointless to attempt to obfuscate the facts reported, but a user (see the article talk page; apparently a family member) is repeatedly excising the reliable sources because they don't want the article to mention suicide, and claim to 'know' it wasn't. Despite explanations of the nature of Wikipedia sourcing being given to this family member on the talk page, they silently return and remove the information, having previously made a vague threat and been slapped on the wrist for it. The family's views of the matter are understandable, but at his death was more-or-less the only time Phillips was ever of sufficient note to appear in the media, and lacking any detail (along the lines of 'Phillips died in 1991', which is at least preferable to the unencyclopaedic tone of their previous statement on the subject- "Contrary to some fabricated and slanderous allegations, Nicholas died in 1991. He is remembered for being a kind, hardworking and thoughtful Gentleman") leaves the article a self-indulgent list of notable people from whom he descended. With this trivial edit-warring and his evident lack of notability in mind, Phillips would surely suffice as a subsection of the Luton Hoo article? He himself did nothing notable, nor was he in any way apart from the genealogical links so extensively delineated in his article. Many thanks for your assistance

Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:00, 10 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 18:31, 10 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:08, 11 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:08, 11 January 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete - Just doesn't seem to pass WP:GNG; no real "significant coverage" of him or anything he did- not every minor landowner is notable. I've had a look, and aside from references to his death, which appears to be currently being ferociously argued over on the Talk page, the only mentions of him are as the owner of Luton Hoo, and appearances in Burke's and Debrett's. Nothing else in Google Books, nor general internet searches, to indicate notability... he's already covered on the Luton Hoo article anyway, so the only purpose being served by the article is to present his ancestry, which while not uninteresting, doesn't make him notable ( /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Family). Just being "a landowner in Hertfordshire and Bedfordshire", "a descendant of Sophia, Electress of Hanover" and "in the line of succession to the British throne" is insufficient. RBWhitney12 ( talk) 18:36, 12 January 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete nothing in the article indicates he is particularly noteworthy, a mention in the Luton Hoo article would be sufficient. MilborneOne ( talk) 16:58, 16 January 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete - I agree with the rationale for deletion and that he could simply be covered with a mention in the Luton Hoo article. A redirect to that might be a possibility, but I am not convinced that it is needed. Dunarc ( talk) 20:20, 17 January 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.