Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Katherine Grant, 12th Countess of Dysart

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. (Non-administrator closure.) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:15, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Katherine Grant, 12th Countess of Dysart[edit]

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

Non-notable Scottish Countess (post House of Lords Act 1999) Flaming Ferrari (talk) 15:21, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, there are some good sources here, including her obituary in The Times, so notable per WP:N. NB 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) 07:51, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Moonraker's points are well made. There is considerable contextual value in being able to click through the succession of what may today be considered a relatively minor peerage. Deleting this article would just create pressure to amalgamate the content with the preceding and/or succeeding Earls of Dysart title holder articles which would be clumsy and potentially confusing. KenBailey (talk) 19:21, 10 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) 23:41, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Given that reputable independent sources confirm that the subject died in 2011, surely WP:BDP applies? KenBailey (talk) 17:03, 14 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) 08:30, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument is invalid, we are not dealing with peerage but with almost empty useless pages. --Vituzzu (talk) 10:55, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets WP:N; as comment above states, there is plenty of (non trivial) detail from the Times obituary that could be used to flesh this out. SagaciousPhil - Chat 12:25, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the Rothiemurchus estate is one of the greater estates in the Scottish Highlands, so that its owner should be notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:06, 17 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) 10:59, 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.