Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of eldest sons of earls in the peerages of Britain and Ireland

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. ✗plicit 07:04, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of eldest sons of earls in the peerages of Britain and Ireland[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

The article definetly needs to be rewritten however I think that even if it was, it still wouldn't be suitable for Wikipedia so I am nominating it per WP:NOTCATALOG. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 05:56, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Unsoured, my searches found no evidence that it meets Wikipedia:Stand-alone_lists#Notability (t · c) buidhe 06:12, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Rewrite, find sources, expand. This is a topic that is of general notability. Someone must have access to Debrett's Peerage as a source. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 06:19, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What sources indicate discuss the list items jointly? That is how list notability is usually determined. (t · c) buidhe 06:54, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Debrett’s certainly would list all of them grouped with their families, rank, etc. The site I found said the last edition was printed in 2019. I would consider that a grouping for list purposes.
Bookworm857158367 (talk) 12:37, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NLIST. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:35, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:NLIST. There's nothing that I can find, per NLIST, that indicates the topic or its members have been "discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources". A [search, for example, of a random selection of names from the list, returns only the Wikipedia article and its mirrors (and exhaustive "lists of every single peerage ever" type stuff...) Guliolopez (talk) 10:24, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility, Lists, Ireland, and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:36, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:49, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability is not inherited, so they can of sourse have their own article but this list fails as mentioned by others. ww2censor (talk) 12:00, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:35, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - qualifies as notable per WP:NLIST (notable topic, most list members have blue links). However, as the article stands -- with no context for anything -- it fails WP:NOT. This is just a catalog of long-dead, lucky rich guys that didn't have phone numbers but got into some sort of historical white pages directory anyways. Give it some context or more information and it might be worth keeping.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 15:57, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a violation under NLIST and NOTINHERITED microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish•growths)} 19:28, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Cannot pass WP:NLIST. Raymond3023 (talk) 04:28, 8 November 2023 (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.