Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Curzon, 4th Viscount Scarsdale (2nd nomination)

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. Whether also to redirect is an editorial decision. Sandstein 20:54, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Curzon, 4th Viscount Scarsdale

[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)

It's been a while since the 2014 no consensus discussion. This nobleman fails our notability guideline for biographies, and violates WP:GENEALOGY in its current state, since 95% of the article is about the subject's family. The subject inherited the title in 2000, and therefore never sat in the House of Lords. The sources are deprecated or do not provide significant coverage, except one 1997 article which in my opinion helps meet WP:GNG. However, the coverage is only about one event (WP:BLP1E) and it is not WP:SUSTAINED.

My personal source assessment follows.

**Source assessment table:**
Source	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
"Scarsdale, Viscount (UK, 1911)". Cracroft's Peerage. Retrieved 20 May 2011.	Deprecated self-published peerage website.		✘ No
Gerard, Lesley (7 June 1997). "familyfeuds". The Independent. London. Retrieved 20 May 2011.			✔ Yes
Gardner, Anthony (22 September 2008). "Open house: Derbyshire's stately homes". Daily Telegraph. London. Retrieved 20 May 2011.		no mention	✘ No
"Enjoy a walk on the wild side in Lady Scarsdale's lovely garden". This Is Derbyshire. Archived from the original on 5 May 2013. Retrieved 20 May 2011.		no mention	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Pilaz (talk) 18:08, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. Pilaz (talk) 18:08, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Pilaz (talk) 18:08, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Viscount Scarsdale. HandsomeFella (talk) 21:02, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect per Pilaz's assessment. GNG requires multiple sources with SIGCOV. JoelleJay (talk) 22:49, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm struggling to understand the 2014 (non-admin) closure, given no credible argument in favour of keeping the article was advanced. One editor suggested that "some people are interested in hereditary peerages" which is pretty much a perfect example of an argument to avoid in a deletion discussion. Plenty of people are interested in the thousands of TikTok "stars" out there. It doesn't mean we should fill an encyclopedia with their bios. This article notably consists absolutely entirely of who Curzon's siblings are, his two marriages, his "American divorcée companion" (good bit of British upper-class snobbery there) and that his step-mother, the "Dowager Viscountess", lives in the vicarage. I think that speaks for itself on Curzon's (lack of) notability. AusLondonder (talk) 14:16, 1 April 2022 (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.