Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robin Dundas, Earl of Ronaldshay

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 no consensus. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 14:32, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Robin Dundas, Earl of Ronaldshay

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

non notable aristocrat Flaming Ferrari (talk) 15:46, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:04, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:04, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - earls are fairly high up in the aristocracy, and until recently were automatically voting members of the House of Lords. Bearian (talk) 22:09, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 22:54, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete per WP:GNG, WP:NPOL, and WP:ANYBIO. Regardless of parents, he isn't a notable person by himself, and the extension given from his lineage doesn't make up for having little coverage, few actions or contributions, and a seemingly weak role or influence in community. If not delete, them merge. --Mysterytrey 01:29, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - peers are automatically notable by virtue of being peers. Eustachiusz (talk) 14:43, 17 March 2014 (UTC) sorry - wrong disussion. I've no strong view on whether the heirs of peers, as opposed to the peers themselves, warrant separate articles, but if the article is not kept it should be Merged / Re-directed, not deleted. Eustachiusz (talk) 14:49, 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) 10:39, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As members of the higher nobility in a country where such nobility has an active legal status, they're notable . when they were legislators it was automatic under WP:POLITICIAN, but it makes sense even now when when they are not. DGG ( talk ) 00:38, 24 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.