Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Benedict Alexander Stanley Baldwin, Viscount Corvedale

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. Cirt (talk) 03:39, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Benedict Alexander Stanley Baldwin, Viscount Corvedale[edit]

Being the son of someone does not make you notable. After the rules for the House of Lords were changed, this person is no longer guaranteed a seat, and should only be added when and if he does. Passportguy (talk) 13:16, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a viscount we should include him.Max Mux (talk) 13:17, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Non-notable. He is a viscount by courtesy, not in his own right. Please stop creating these articles on non-notable peers or courtesy peers. Tryde (talk) 13:25, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy or not I think he belongs here. Great Britain is still a monarchy.Max Mux (talk) 13:43, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Monarchy or not, a person is not notable simply because they are a member of a certain family. Otherwise we'd have thousands and thousands of articles on the very extenstive families of the Arab Gulf states. Passportguy (talk) 13:47, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course they can be added. Royalty and peers of monarchys are notable.Max Mux (talk) 14:21, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No they aren't. The cousin of a cousin of a cousin of the emir is not notable. Any person must pass WP:BIO. Passportguy (talk) 14:23, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not notable. At this point, just being born appears to be his claim to notability. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:47, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Wikipedia clearly rejects inherited notability. The subject of the article must be notable. Everyone who has hereditary title is not notable. You could make a better case that anyone who is knighted by the Queen has a better claim to notability with that honorary title than someone with an inherited one. Drawn Some (talk) 15:35, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect per nominator.
~~ Phoe _talk ~~ 16:07, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as someone who is very obviously non-notable (yes, their grandfather might have been—I almost care). ╟─Treasury Tag►Africa, Asia and the UN─╢ 17:01, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Whatever you think of fully fledged peers (and people know my view in regards to passing WP:BIO) the possessors of courtesy titles are not inherently notable. Yes, Britain is a monarchy - that doesn't make him notable. Pull some policy out and then come back with an argument. Ironholds (talk) 17:20, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Drawn Some and Ironholds. Livitup (talk) 17:24, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The links are showing his notability.Max Mux (talk) 18:06, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3 of the sources are not considered reliable and one is a copy of Wikipedia's material on the topic. Ironholds (talk) 18:08, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For info, the links "not considered reliable" are classed so because they are self-published. ╟─Treasury Tag►without portfolio─╢ 18:57, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But they are often used here.Max Mux (talk) 19:09, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well they shouldn't be. I used thepeerage a couple of times early on, and I'll get around to cleaning those up (its on my "things to do" list near the bottom. Ironholds (talk) 19:10, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, my goodness.Max Mux (talk) 19:25, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, sorry if you don't like it, but there it is. ╟─Treasury Tag►presiding officer─╢ 19:53, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 11 June 2009 (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.