Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Henry Lytton-Cobbold

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. The arguments on both sides of the keep-delete debate were well-balanced. Deathphoenix ʕ 19:36, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Lytton-Cobbold[edit]

This page is redundant. The current owner of Knebworth House is already listed on the Knebworth House page. Nekohakase 16:11, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Appears non-notable, except for the Knebworth connection; mentioning him there seems sufficient. Brianyoumans 20:14, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As heir to the Cobbold Baronacy, he will have his own article when his father dies anyhow, so it seems pointless to delete it, only to recreate it when the time comes. Page should be moved to Henry Fromanteel Lytton-Cobbold, though, as that is his full name. Jcuk 21:29, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment that's crystal-ball stuff. he should get his page when he deserves it. Nekohakase 21:45, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment its only crystal-ball in so far as assuming the Prince of Wales will become king on the death of his mother is crystal-ball. He will one day become Baron Cobbold. Jcuk 14:05, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The material is duplicated elsewhere and there's no reason to have a page at this time. Even if he does inherit his father's title, I'm not sure that there's any reason to have automatic entries for minor English peers with no other notability criteria. Espresso Addict 23:30, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment Wikipedia:Notability (royalty) (proposed policy) suggests that British Peers and holders of courtesy titles (i.e. heirs apparent) ..... are automatically notable. Jcuk 14:14, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have added more data to the article on his screenwriting career. Note that his professional credits seem to be mostly under the name of "Henry Cobbold", rather than "Henry Lytton-Cobbold". They seem somewhat marginal, but re-examination may be warranted. (Incidentally, unless there's some other Henry Lytton-Cobbold he has to be disambiguated from, the page should not be moved to include his middle name.) Choess 05:16, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Per the IMDb credits for 'Henry Cobbold', I don't feel he's currently notable as a screenwriter. The Healey article you reference is so sycophantic that I don't consider it a creditable source; The Shooting Party assistant work appears in the IMDb under 'Henry Ditton-Cobbold', and that entry doesn't list Water.) Espresso Addict 21:39, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Well, as I said, the professional credits are marginal, but at least know they're mentioned. I assume "Henry Ditton-Cobbold" is a typo in the database for "Henry Litton-Cobbold"; people on this side of the water seem to have a great deal of trouble with his name. Choess 22:35, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete screenwriting credits are trivial, the prospect of owning a notable house does not confer notability any more than owning it would, being heir to a barony is of no importance whatsoever (nor, re crystal ball gazing, will being baron thingy confer notability in my view). The proposed policy is just that, proposed: anyone can write an essay. Angus McLellan (Talk) 09:34, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - As creator of the page, I agree with Jcuk comments. I think being heir to a famous title and the owner of a famous house is sufficient to justify a page to record what is know about the man. People can then decide for themselves if he deserves the title and the house! Nwsmith 00:53, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- a necessary and informative page. The family is well-known and he is the owner of a famous concert venue. What purpose is served by deleting it? The only one I can think of is the deletion of noteworthy information. 76.16.75.77 04:36, 3 October 2006 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Henry_Lytton-Cobbold&oldid=1071358075"