Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Abney-Hastings, 14th Earl of Loudoun

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. per WP:SNOW (non-admin closing) - Milk's Favorite Cookie 01:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Abney-Hastings, 14th Earl of Loudoun[edit]

fails WP:N Camaeron (talk) 16:39, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Mike may be an Earl but this does not necessariliy mean he fulfils WP:Notability. Even though he is a pretender he has never made a claim to the throne. I propose this page is merged with Britain's Real Monarch the main backer of the theory. I think everyone will agree when I say not many rice researchers are notable enough to be added to wikipedia! --Camaeron (talk) 16:39, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If you want to merge this page into Britain's Real Monarch, AFD is not the place to do it. I suggest you add a {{mergeto}} tag to Michael Abney-Hastings, 14th Earl of Loudoun and start a merge discussion on Talk:Michael Abney-Hastings, 14th Earl of Loudoun. --Pixelface (talk) 17:16, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I dont want to merge it really. Id much rather delete the whole thing as in my opin. he is not notable. He only featured in BRM for five mins or so.

Strong keep - rename if you have to, but this individual is extremely notable in genealogical circles, aside from the documentary. -- Roleplayer (talk) 17:00, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I'd say the documentary makes him notable. --Pixelface (talk) 17:11, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - he was a member of the House of Lords and entitled to attend until 1999, making him automatically notable as a politician in the UK's Upper house of Parliament!! --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 17:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, he succeeded after 1999. Still notable though. --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 18:00, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Members of the highest legislature of a country are de facto notable per WP:BIO. —Quasirandom (talk) 18:17, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Except he wasnt he suceeded his mother in 2002, after the reform...--Camaeron (talk) 19:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But he can stand in the elections to be one the 90. --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 19:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops -- missed that about the succession date and the reform. I maintain Keep though, on general notability grounds. —Quasirandom (talk) 22:07, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Earls are good enough for me. --Dhartung | Talk 18:21, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; Earls are rare enough that we can document the set and there's normally enough to write at least a small biography. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 19:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Part of the problem is the nominator seems to have cherry-picked one aspect of this subject's bio (he's a rice researcher), decided that rice researchers are inherently non-notable (regardless of numerous other factors), and ignored a major reliable source (in which it is claimed he is only in for "five minutes" - Loudon appears in Britain's Real Monarch for about five minutes, but in fact the whole programme is about his bloodline and the reasons for his obvious notability). --Canley (talk) 21:00, 11 March 2008 (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.