Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Herbert, 18th Earl of Pembroke

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 keep. (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica1000 21:05, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

William Herbert, 18th Earl of Pembroke[edit]

William Herbert, 18th Earl of Pembroke (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable hereditary Earl 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) 15:37, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, notable per WP:N, a significant figure in the West of England, 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) 07:33, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:30, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:31, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:31, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment From an objective point of view I read this article as: Spent Two years as product designer, inherited the family title and now runs the family estate. Is a motoring enthusiast but has done nothing in the world of motoring to mark him out as individually notable.Flaming Ferrari (talk) 19:37, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm curious. What is your understanding of the general notability guidelines? And how does your understanding differentiate from your comment here? Cindy(talk) 20:02, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Just about meets the general notability guideline, which is about requiring reliable sources to be available. Judging from the large number of deletions of pages on Earls and Marquesses you have proposed, Flaming Ferrari, you seem to have the view that peers not in the House of Lords are inherently non-notable, but even an Earl has only to meet the GNG. Moonraker (talk) 20:08, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per Moonraker's rationale. AfD nomination by a user who seems not to understand WP:GNG and other relevant guidelines.--ColonelHenry (talk) 21:12, 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) 03:34, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete definitely fails WP:GNG and WP:BLP. "Being born" cannot mean notability, as Flaming Ferrari underlines there are no other notable activities. For the sake of completeness a row in a table is enough. --Vituzzu (talk) 23:46, 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) 08:27, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Your argument is invalid, we are not dealing with peerage but with almost empty useless pages. --Vituzzu (talk) 10:56, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Being the owner of Wilton House, one of the great country houses of England and of an estate of 14000 acres is surely notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:34, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Moonraker. This earl is fairly high up in the peerage, and a very old title at that, one of the oldest if my information is correct. The fact that he owns and maintains a 'great house' adds to his notability. Bearian (talk) 19:40, 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) 10:48, 18 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/William_Herbert,_18th_Earl_of_Pembroke&oldid=1068999665"