Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Henry FitzRoy, 12th Duke of Grafton

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. → Call me Hahc21 16:15, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Henry FitzRoy, 12th Duke of Grafton[edit]

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

Hereditary Duke who inherited his title after the House of Lords Act 1999 thus has never possessed the right to sit in the House of Lords. WP is not a family tree, and I see no other grounds for notability beyond his inherited title. Flaming Ferrari (talk) 17:48, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This nomination seems to rely on the notion that only Dukes who sit in the House of Lords are notable. (As it happens, there is only one such Duke, and he is on a leave of absence. None of the Royal Dukes now has a seat in the Lords.) But even a Duke has only to meet the general notability guideline, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list. "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a passing mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." The point of WP:N is not that subjects of our articles need to deserve an article, but that information about them should be verifiable. Reliable sources are available for this man, however deserving or underserving some might think him. Moonraker (talk) 19:19, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Moonraker's rationale.--ColonelHenry (talk) 21:10, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. 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. It strikes me as important to let the relevant wikiproject(s) know about these sorts of deletion proposals.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 03:35, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Jimbo, and due to his independent notability as a concert promoter. Bearian (talk) 20:28, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete definitely fails WP:GNG and WP:BLP. Concert promoter 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) 23:03, 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) 08:20, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, for sake of complete set of entries on hereditary peers holding notable titles. I also like moonraker's rationale. Yes, the new Duke is not particularly newsworthy at present, but we have had entries on most if not all of the dukes, including those short-lived and those with particularly bland private and public lives. As a interested person who writes up biographies of obscure historical figures here and elsewhere (purely for fun), I refer people to Wikipedia for a general summary. Wikibiohistory2 (talk) 12:14, 15 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.