Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simon Bowes-Lyon, 19th Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne (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 keep. Sandstein 10:34, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Bowes-Lyon, 19th Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne

[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 article was previously conclusively deleted in a previous AfD in September last year. He has now been convicted of sexual assault. Even with this coverage, it still fails WP:BLP1E because the only notable coverage is about the sexual assault conviction. Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:36, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:36, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:36, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging the participants to the previous AfD: @PatGallacher: @Buidhe: @Whiteguru: @Ritchie333: @Dunarc: @Peterkingiron: Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:41, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Surtsicna: who was the original nominator. Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:47, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Neutral~~ Keep arguably the new coverage puts him over the line of GNG. There is also coverage about COVID restrictions issue so I don't see this as BLP1E. The history of the previous article is now at a different place. If this closes as keep, a history merge may be in order. (t · c) buidhe 04:53, 13 January 2021 (UTC) Edit: He's now being covered in multiple foreign countries[1][2][3] which puts it over the line for me. (t · c) buidhe 22:10, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Even still, there's relatively little meaningful to be said about him, other than the covid breach and the conviction. Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:56, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A criminal conviction is normally an excellent way to establish wikinotability but WP may retain a policy (undocumented?) of droit du seigneur. In Britain COVID restrictions do not apply to VIPs and certainly not to the aristocracy. Thincat (talk) 10:00, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Not voting Keep or Delete here, but if droit du seigneur is actually secretly believed in by anyone here, it is wrong and should be admitted and abolished. He should not be considered any less notable because of any institutional bias in favour of his class which might lead to his being treated more leniently for either offence. As I say, I have no dog in this fight, but Wikipedia should not be replicating class bias, and it could be argued that deleting this article might be seen by some as a means of glossing up bad practice by the aristocracy. I make no comment on whether I believe that myself. RobinCarmody (talk) 21:11, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  You might want to send your irony detector in for recalibration. E Eng 13:13, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The articles about the court case will come up any time someone searches his name regardless, so deleting this Wikipedia article won't cause his crimes to disappear. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:14, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:GNG as has significant coverage (considerable press coverage for the COVID-19 violation and the conviction in addition to owning Glamis Castle) in reliable sources (broadsheet newspapers + books) that are independent of the subject (he obviously doesn't own the newspapers). Greenshed (talk) 17:58, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I am very undecided about this one. Given the news story I did think the page may reappear and can see that it arguably increases his notability (though notoriety might be a better word, and I am not sure I like the idea of notoriety helping justify someone having an article). I suppose it could be argued it shows his position as an Earl maybe makes him more notable in the public eye than I and others felt in the previous deletion discussion. On the other hand I really wonder if this would have got much more than local media coverage if it was not for the fact he is distantly related to the Queen (and it is more distant than cousin as some more sloppy reports I have seen today state) and Glamis Castle has royal associations (being the childhood home of the late Queen Mother and birthplace of Princess Margaret). To my mind that raises the issue of the well-established Wikipedia principle that people are not considered notable because of their relations. This is a difficult one to call. Dunarc (talk) 21:54, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lean Keep. While I still have concerns that a lot of his notability is related to his relationship to the Royal Family, the international coverage would seem to be enough to meet current WP:GNG. Dunarc (talk) 23:50, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Uh, we are not tasked with making morality calls here - as much as some would like to. This brings to mind the notability guidelines for crime and criminals, we have to be neutral, just as the article has to meet WP:NPOV. Which it does. It also meets notability due the association with Glamis Castle. WP:GNG - what the Butler did. --Whiteguru (talk) 23:16, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - am Earl, and cousin of the British royals, and likely to be in the news as he has been recently. Bearian (talk) 22:14, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hereditary peerages that were attained after the passing of the House of Lords Act 1999 are not automatically considered notable, per WP:NOTINHERITED, as they hold no political power. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:20, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I must confess that I have not read the House of Lords Act 1999 but I very much doubt that it descends to the particulars of biographical notability on the Wikipedia. The holding of political power is only one aspect amongst a vast array of things that might make a person notable on the Wikipedia. As regards WP:NOTINHERITED, I don't think anyone here is arguing that descent from an aristocrat, per se, makes one notable. It's the holding of the title of nobility which is not always the same thing. If sufficient WP:RS cover the person in sufficient detail then they're notable and being a peer attracts mentions in RS. It would be good to include references from Burke's Peerage, Baronetage and Knightage or Debrett's Peerage and Baronetage if someone has access and holding a title of nobility will tend to get one a mention in those works. Greenshed (talk) 10:44, 16 January 2021 (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.