Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Fortescue, 7th Earl Fortescue

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--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 17:41, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Fortescue, 7th Earl Fortescue[edit]

Unreferenced for over 2 years, fails verifiability policy. Also does not appear to meet WP:BIO. Stifle (talk) 11:50, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It seems fairly likely that the source used for this article is the following book: Kidd, Charles, Williamson, David (editors). Debrett's Peerage and Baronetage (1990 edition). New York: St Martin's Press, 1990. This book is listed as the source for the main Earl Fortescue article, so it seems most likely that the info for the present article was taken from there as well. The info agrees with what is given at www.geneall.net[1](although this site probably does not pass WP:RS). In terms of notability the case does look pretty thin and there seems to be no claim to notability other than his title. However, I don't know how the issue of notability is usually dealt with for members of the British peerage. Nsk92 (talk) 13:33, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - trivial coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 20:45, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As a British Peer, he was a member of the House of Lords, and was thus inherently notable, per Wikipedia:Notability (people), which lists "People who have held international, national or first-level sub-national political office, including members of a legislature and judges." just as any U.S. member of a state legislature or the U.S. Senate or House of Representatives. All that is required is a reliable source for verification, which the peerage book seems to be. Edison (talk) 03:04, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Earls are notable. Baronets, not if they have no other distinction. In the middle there's some unsettled territory.DGG (talk) 04:39, 17 August 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Keep Status as Earl is a rather strong claim of inherent notability. While the article would benefit greatly from the addition of sources, that's a great reason to tag as "refimprove", but an extremely poor argument for deletion. Alansohn (talk) 00:36, 19 August 2008 (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.