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.
Keep, likely to be notable per
WP:N. The sources we have for the page so far are generally good but do not cover all the information given on the page. Please note also the comment of Jimbo Wales at
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexander Gordon, 7th Marquess of Aberdeen and Temair and elsewhere: "There is usefulness in having a compete set of entries on hereditary peers, even if some peers are less prominent or noteworthy than others, even when the article must of necessity remain something of a stub. Considering these articles in isolation, i.e. not noting that they are part of a wider series, is mistaken."
Moonraker (
talk) 16:59, 9 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete definitely fails WP:GNG and WP:BLP. "Being born" cannot mean notability. For the sake of completeness a row in a table is enough. --
Vituzzu (
talk) 23:11, 13 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Keep: whether or not one approves of the hereditary peerage (and baronetage), there are still plenty of people interested in the present holder of an historical title.
45ossington (
talk) 08:35, 14 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Your argument is invalid, we are not dealing with peerage but with almost empty useless pages. --
Vituzzu (
talk) 10:52, 14 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Keep. I think I'm coming down on the side of keeping articles on peers or their heirs, whether or not they sit in the House of Lords, as all their predecessors did (and therefore all meet
WP:POLITICIAN) and it would be slightly odd and not of value to the project to break the chain of Wikipedia articles. --
Necrothesp (
talk) 10:42, 18 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
slakr\
talk / 05:57, 22 March 2014 (UTC)reply
I still say merge but no objection to keeping.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 14:20, 22 March 2014 (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.