Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles McLaren, 4th Baron Aberconway

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. → Call me Hahc21 01:27, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Charles McLaren, 4th Baron Aberconway[edit]

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

Non-notable hereditary peer (post House of Lords Act 1999) Flaming Ferrari (talk) 15:25, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable in any way.TheLongTone (talk) 01:00, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unremarkable old Etonian.TheLongTone (talk) 18:01, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A brief search turns up an article tentatively identifying him as the owner of Picasso's $50m painting Child with a Dove. That and any basic reference establishing him as holding a barony (I don't really understand what that means) makes him notable. Wnt (talk) 00:32, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Seems like the family sold the painting to a Qatari collector [1]

Keep. 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. It strikes me as important to let the relevant wikiproject(s) know about these sorts of deletion proposals.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 03:29, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jimbo Wales. In passing, more reliable sources must exist and need to be added. Moonraker (talk) 19:17, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:57, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:57, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - while I am not 100 % certain that all barons would automatically be notable in the 21st century, as an important art collector, he would pass WP:GNG. Bearian (talk) 22:17, 11 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, KTC (talk) 22:54, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Bearian. Even if only because of the art, the present (or even past) possession of that painting gives it just enough of a lasting effect to pass WP:1E. --Mysterytrey 01:38, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - peers are automatically notable by virtue of being peers. Eustachiusz (talk) 14:46, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why? simply because some ancestor did something? Notability, unlike a title, is not inherited. A lot of peers, like this one, are simply dreary rich people.TheLongTone (talk) 20:59, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In the case of peers, the notability comes with the title. And see other replies. Eustachiusz (talk) 12:05, 18 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) 10:50, 18 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.