Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Deane, 9th Baron Muskerry

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. and then Redirect to Baron Muskerry Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:51, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Deane, 9th Baron Muskerry[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)

This nobleman fails WP:BIO, due to no significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. BEFORE did not turn up anything satisfying the GNG criteria. Gets passing mentions in the tertiary sources Debrett's and Burke's, but then again, WP:NOTGENEALOGY. Pilaz (talk) 20:59, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility, Ireland, and United Kingdom. Pilaz (talk) 20:59, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Baron Muskerry. Or, failing that, delete. Again we have another one of these NOTGENEALOGY entries/articles which only exist because the person holds a title. Holders of peerage titles are not automatically notable. If the only thing we can say (and support) about this person is that they hold a title, then that fact can be covered in the article about that title. Per nom, there is nothing to indicate that GNG or SIGCOV are otherwise met, and the only (scant) sources which support the basic information we have (confirming that the subject was born, married, had children and owns a [granted large] property) are directory-style peerage entries and the like. Which are all tied, inexorably, to the title the subject holds. Hence "redirect" to the article on that title... Guliolopez (talk) 13:55, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unsourced BLP, fails GNG and BIO. BEFORE showed nothing that meets WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. Unsourced BLPs eligible for BLP PROD. No objection to a redirect if the unsourced BLP (includes info on children) is deleted before redirect. // Timothy :: talk 19:21, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:42, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - reads awfully like something written by a family member in the early days before sources were considered essential. Deb (talk) 20:17, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the title page as an WP:ATDR. Plausible search term with no possibility of confusion. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 14:44, 9 October 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.