Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adrian Buckmaster, 4th Viscount Buckmaster

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. Arguments are clearly weighted towards keeping, although I note that sources would be nice. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:09, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian Buckmaster, 4th Viscount Buckmaster[edit]

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

Non-notable hereditary Viscount who inherited his title after the House of Lords Act 1999 thus has never possessed the right to sit in the House of Lords. Flaming Ferrari (talk) 14:28, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, notable per WP:N, although sources need to be improved. NB also the comment of Jimbo Wales at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexander Gordon, 7th Marquess of Aberdeen and Temair and elsewhere: "There is usefulness in having a compete set of entries on hereditary peers, even if some peers are less prominent or noteworthy than others, even when the article must of necessity remain something of a stub. Considering these articles in isolation, i.e. not noting that they are part of a wider series, is mistaken." Moonraker (talk) 08:24, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I see nothing notable about him. Has not been in the House of Lords.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:58, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete definitely fails WP:GNG and WP:BLP. Businessman activity is not relevant at all, while "being born" cannot mean notability. For the sake of completeness a row in a table is enough. --Vituzzu (talk) 23:32, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: whether or not one approves of the hereditary peerage (and baronetage), there are still plenty of people interested in the present holder of an historical title.45ossington (talk) 08:34, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument is invalid, we are not dealing with peerage but with almost empty useless pages. --Vituzzu (talk) 10:54, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Probably notable for having been chief exec of Avecia, a small plc, apparently taken over in 2011 to become a subsidiuary of Nitto Denko. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:08, 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) 10:43, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisting comment: Let us discuss for one more week. So far deletes were based on WP:GNG and some of the keeps represented personal opinions, but at least the Avecia argument is worthwhile to be discussed, and may be there could be additional keep arguments.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:51, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ymblanter (talk) 10:51, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Perhaps in fifty years, none of this will matter. However, even nowadays, being a peer gives such a socioeconomic advantage in life that one almost always becomes notable due to business networking and the old boy network. In this case, the Viscount has been engaged in high-level registered charity and business work, so he'd probably be notable for those activities. Bearian (talk) 22:54, 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.