Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles Carnegie, Lord Carnegie

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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 21:27, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Carnegie, Lord Carnegie

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

Non-notable - only claim to notability is as a presumptive future Duke, and former Page of Honour. Unable to find any substantive references from Google (other than entries in peerage directories). Unsourced BLP, tagged since June. To the extent that coverage is merited, can be (and is) mentioned in Duke of Fife and Page of Honour. David^(Talk) 23:48, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect - Why would you go for delete when a merge/redirect to David Carnegie, Earl of Southesk is a perfectly legitimate proposal on the talk page, and can be accomplished easily and quickly without exercising the community with an AFD? Thanks ShoesssS ^Talk 00:05, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Because it would mean totally unnecessarily leaving the text of an unsourced BLP present in the history, which, while not the end of the world (since it's not derogatory) is probably not in principle a good thing to do, other things being equal, as they are in this instance. Perhaps I should have specified Delete then redirect in the nom. David^(Talk) 00:37, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. There's a difference between a merge/redirect, and a mention (which is all CC rated in the first place). If someone is not notable enough for an article, then I see no reason that they should have their own redirect page either. When the article was created, it was for a kid not quite 15, who happened to be the son the Earl of Southesk. It's an unlikely search term, and although redirects may be cheap, our standards should not be. Good call, nominator. Mandsford (talk) 18:39, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 02:50, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 02:51, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with the nom/Mandsford on this - a merge is overkill as all that is required is a brief mention. Eusebeus (talk) 14:55, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As noted above, subject has not received coverage in reliable sources.--Pink Bull (talk) 19:43, 3 September 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.