Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Archibald Montgomerie, 16th Earl of Eglinton

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. Fritzpoll (talk) 10:01, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Archibald Montgomerie, 16th Earl of Eglinton

I can't find any references to back any of this up, or to confer any notability. A Google search reveals many mirrors of this article, and a couple of other Earls of Eglinton with the same name, but basically nothing on this guy. ╟─Treasury Tag►hemicycle─╢ 09:11, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are sources.[1] [2] He may not be as notable as other members of his family, but just being Earl of Eglinton and Earl of Winton is an assertion of notability. He was also Grand Master Mason of the Grand Lodge of Scotland. [3] Edward321 (talk) 00:25, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This site is a self-published source, and this not admissible on Wikipedia. Most of the results of the Google search are just mirrors of the Wikipedia page, except this, which doesn't form the basis for an article, it just mentions him once in passing. ╟─Treasury Tag►sundries─╢ 06:37, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious keepMax Mux (talk) 08:10, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You mean that there's NO REASON to keep it, I presume? ╟─Treasury Tag►hemicycle─╢ 08:14, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sources are all unreliable and self-published. Fails WP:BIO. Ironholds (talk) 09:20, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. These books don't all appear to be unreliable and self-published. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:24, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They're mainly hunting and lord directories, though. I meant the sources given - the sources available still fail WP:BIO in that they aren't significant/detailed coverage. Ironholds (talk) 14:06, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He had an obituary in The Scotsman and sat in the House of Lords. Kernel Saunters (talk) 15:51, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Why has the creator of the article not been informed of this deletion attempt? Kernel Saunters (talk) 15:59, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly passes WP:POLITICIAN as a member of a national legislature. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:21, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Higher nobility in a country where they still have legal status is notable. (we rightly rejected this for baronets, but earls are several steps up) . And a member of a National Legislature is automatically notable-one of our established conventions. DGG (talk) 00:09, 6 June 2009 (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.