Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexander Montagu, 13th Duke of Manchester


 * 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 (should be redirect to Duke of Manchester, but there's an issue with that too).. There's no consensus either way to Keep or Delete the article, the discussion is fairly evenly balanced, although the stronger set of arguments probably falls on the Delete side. There are too many people insisting because he inherited a title he is notable, but there is sufficient doubt regarding whether he has inherited a title (and even if he did there is a question about inheriting notability. The title no longer confers legislative responsibilities because of the Lords reforms; he's not a member of the House of Lords and plays no role in the UK legislative process, all but extinguishing any notability he may once have had pre Lords reform). He no longer has any public role and has never sought any sort of public position. I'm sufficiently satisfied to agree that he isn't notable, but the title of Duke of Manchester is and it is of interest to readers of the article Duke of Manchester who the current Duke could be. If there was some confirmation Alexander Montagu is definitely the 13th Duke, I will explicitly leave the option to create a redirect available to anybody able to provide cast iron referencing at Duke of Manchester regarding the current title holder (or whether the title is presently vacant etc) but as there's a question hanging over that at the moment, I'm going to Delete the article. Nick (talk) 16:56, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Alexander Montagu, 13th Duke of Manchester

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Mr. Montagu does not pass Wikipedia's "notability" bar. He has an inherited title, but that's about it. He has not been the subject of any single newspaper article focusing on his life and times, hopes, fears, dreams, successes, failures etc... let alone multiple ones, let alone the sorts of book length biographies/long features in the quality press that would be required at minimum to treat him fairly. He has been married three times, and it's clear that his first two wives don't like him very much. There are a smattering of articles that mention his disputes with his former wives (and their claims against him, which he disputes), and a brief flurry of interest when the legitimacy of one of his marriages was questioned. However, the courts ruled that his marriage was legit and that was the end of that. Furthermore, the press frequently repeats claims made by interested parties in disputes without getting to the bottom of the matter - the ground truth. An ephemeral newspaper article is one thing; the top search engine hit for a person's name, presumably for eternity, that presents itself as a neutral encyclopedia article, is something else again. The only way an article could fairly be written on this man would be to do an extensive amount of original research, which is disallowed at Wikipedia. He has clearly had some minor legal troubles - fair or unfair I can't say. But so have millions of people. He is being singled out purely because of an inherited title (a fact which he had no control over) and basic empathy should make this an easy delete. He has a brief mention on the Wikipedia article on the noble family he belongs to, which is appropriate and sufficient. (Full disclosure, this came to my attention after chatting briefly about it with Montagu on the web forum Wikipediocracy.) Dan Murphy (talk) 18:22, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Unfortunately, we do not have a policy of deleting articles based on the subject's being unhappy with the book and news coverage he has received, and the Duke can not avail himself of the argument that he is notable for one event. Some links satisfying WP:BASIC: Splendour & Squalor: The Disgrace and Disintegration of Three Aristocratic Dynasties Duke of Manchester's illegitmate children have claim to estate, judge rules,, , Royal Title for Sale. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.151.116.25 (talk) 19:11, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Quite. I'm sure his wives would offer an alternate view to the Duke's, but we are not here to write an article on 'someone with legal troubles'. The Peerage of the United Kingdom are notable citizens by dint of their birth, and where references are found, they are included. Dan, I'm unhappy with the Duke stalking me through Google, by the way. . Gareth E Kegg (talk) 18:11, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * He appears unhappy that you're helping to run a scandal sheet that happens to be the top search hit for his name and stalking him through Google too. So it goes.Dan Murphy (talk) 18:46, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Dan, with regards to yourself and Montagu, I think it's wise that I don't feed the trolls. You know that Wikipedia isn't 'a Scandal sheet', and that we have no control over Google's algorithms. Montagu's next step should be to seek legal redress against the Daily Mail, The Telegraph and The Age, although I think this highly unlikely. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 22:10, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I am unaware of a policy that would have his peerage status confer notability by itself, though clearly it is a major factor in why WP:RS reliable sources have written about him. But we should be clear that he is notable for our purpose because sources have written about him, not because of birthright. 24.151.116.25 (talk) 16:26, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:15, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:16, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:16, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:16, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:16, 15 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete per Dan Murphy. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:17, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep He's a peer, the page is well sourced. Here's an enormously detailed discussion on this page on Wikipediocracy. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 22:44, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Could you explain how "he's a peer" is a reason to keep this (poorly sourced) article? To me it's like saying "he's left-handed."Dan Murphy (talk) 00:57, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Are you aware of Hyacinth? John lilburne (talk) 11:03, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I've just got back from her village fete and bake sale! Gareth E Kegg (talk) 22:12, 16 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete Dan Murphy lays out nicely how Montagu fails notability. &rarr;  Stani Stani  01:57, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Andreas JN 466 09:02, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete, per nom. (And same disclosure.) I can't see any reason why this individual is notable enough for an article. —  Scott  •  talk  13:09, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Two of the three newspaper article references and the "Splendour and Squalor" book are ample sources. Notoriety is enough for Notability. Dingo1729 (talk) 15:54, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. Dan Murphy lays out a compelling case. I do not believe "notoriety is enough for notability", like my colleague above. Optimom (talk) 15:56, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. What a heartwarming emotional plea by the nominator. Too bad that actually he passes WP:ANYBIO WP:BASIC and as such, no policy-based reason to delete. If the person is unhappy about sources talking about him, he should take it with the sources -we just report what they say. -- Cycl o pia talk  14:16, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * You're kidding right? "The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field" - nope. That leaves "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times". Awards - nope. That leaves the "honor" part, which presumably you are saying applies to his titles. The subject has publicly stated that he has declined to be entered on the Roll of the Peerage, and in fact he is not on it. The law of the UK states that any person not entered on the Roll shall not be entitled to the precedence of a peer or addressed or referred to as a peer in any official document. So Mr. Montagu hasn't "received an honor". He doesn't pass. —  Scott  •  talk  14:55, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry -my mistake in linking policy. I wanted to say it passes WP:BASIC. -- Cycl o pia talk  15:01, 17 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. We shouldn't be cobbling together "biographies" out of tabloid tittle-tattle. *** Crotalus *** 19:00, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep He  has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.--Yopie (talk) 21:53, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Weak keep -- If he were not a member of the top rank of the British peerage, there is no doubt that he would (without question) be NN. However, what has become of the less reputable members of the nobility, following the disipation of the family estates to to death duties, debts, or plain profligacy is a matter of some interest.  The article on the 10th Duke says that he spent most of his inheritance, but the references to litigation over the legitmacy of certain children make it clear that there is something left.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:24, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per Dan Murphy. -- Hillbillyholiday talk 05:50, 21 June 2013 (UTC)


 * This AFD was previously closed as "Delete", but owing to concerns over the arguments and consensus (and my reading of it) I have reopened the discussion for further comments and for a clearer consensus. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:05, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:08, 24 June 2013 (UTC)




 * keep I see notability coming from one aspect here: dukes are implicitly notable. This is not a minor title. This is a level in the peerage sufficiently high that no credible case can be made that a duke in the British peerage is non-notable.
 * The legal issues I don't see as conveying notability, however they do justify their inclusion here. If he was a commoner, we wouldn't have this article. Although as there's a source describing it as, "one of the most scandalous and expensive marital court cases in California" then maybe we would.
 * I am particularly concerned that this AfD appears to have been raised with serious issues of COI and off-wiki canvassing via Wikipediocracy . Andy Dingley (talk) 13:07, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * (a) Read above. According to the law of this country, he is a commoner, and no amount of tabloid tittle-tattlers saying "but he was born into nobility" will change that.
 * (b) Wikipedia editors can talk about Wikipedia matters wherever they want, including Wikipediocracy. This AfD was participated in by editors in good standing. Are you similarly "concerned" about what happens on IRC, which unlike Wikipediocracy is conducted in secret, off the Web? —  Scott  •  talk  13:14, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * A claim that "The Duke of Manchester is not the Duke of Manchester" would be an interesting one. It would require sources, for one thing. Apparently, per past talk:, where I was sternly corrected on this by Breadbasket, there are two Duchesses of Manchester. One would think that you can't have one without the other. Also, if he hasn't taken the title and we can source this, there's in-turn a pretty good notability case that that action and its WP:V coverage makes a notable topic in its own right. Per Viscount Stansgate, we give sizable coverage to the best known case of such a thing happening.
 * As for IRC, then I'm against secrecy in WP operations, wherever it's done. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:35, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid you've gotten it back-to-front. The onus is upon anyone supporting the continued existence of this article to prove that Montagu is a peer, not to disprove it. As noted above, the Roll of the Peerage is the only definitive source as to whether a person is a peer or not, and Montagu is not on it. Consequently, they will find the task is impossible. No matter what some newspapers may claim, as sources on the peerage they are completely and irrevocably trumped by the official record established by the law of this country. The newspaper hacks are simply and provably wrong on the matter of whether this man is a peer or not, and to use their claims as the founding basis for an article is to give them more credence than the powers granted to the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs by the Royal Warrant of 2004. —  Scott  •  talk  14:22, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * If you can source the fact that he has rejected the peerage, then I'm listening. However in the meantime, I'm seeing broadsheet newspapers that are generally considered to be reliable sources describing him as "Duke". Andy Dingley (talk) 17:34, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Montagu himself has stated it in the course of discussing this article, and I linked to it above. Also, did you not read what I just explained to you about the superior source for who is considered a peer? —  Scott  •  talk  18:40, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * "Montagu himself has stated" Then he may be correct, but he's not WP:RS to local rules.
 * Agreed, I can't see him listed on the Roll of the Peerage source that you gave. However I can't turn that absence into WP:RS either, certainly not when it contradicts broadsheet newspapers that know far more about the peerage than I do. Is there any statement (Times? London Gazette?) along the lines of "I renounce this title"? Andy Dingley (talk) 19:31, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * What part of "only people on the Roll of the Peerage are peers" is causing you difficulty? —  Scott  •  talk  20:00, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * We would need a source that states "every peer is on this list and there are no peers who are not on this list", with sufficient clarity and robustness to WP:Verify that WP:RS like the Telegraph (a reliable newspaper known for taking rather an interest in the UK peerage) are getting it completely wrong when they describe him as "Duke of Manchester". Secondly this source would have to clarify the meaning of the Roll. So he can't take a seat in the Lords without inclusion, but can he choose to be entered on the Roll in the future? Can he still pass on a title to his children? That's unclear as yet – yet someone who can do that still has a claim "to be a duke" far more than you or I do. If we have hereditary titles, and if their inheritance is considered notable (which for living dukes I believe to be the case), then this should depend on that inheritance, not just their acceptance. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:23, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * We have the source. It's called the Royal Warrant of 2004, and is quoted from and linked to in the article about the Roll. The Roll is the ultimate determinant of whether a person is or is not a peer, which is a status defined in law, not by accident of birth. Can he apply in the future? Will his children get a title? Who cares? You may recall that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Montagu is not a peer right now.
 * All newspapers make mistakes, the Telegraph included. Their mistake was to refer to Mr. Montagu as a duke, when that title is not given to him by Government or Crown. —  Scott  •  talk  22:18, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * So do you actually know the answer as to whether not appearing of the Roll is permanent, or if he could choose to accept the title in the futur? Whether he can pass the title to children? If either of these are the case (and what I've read of the Roll is silent on these aspects) then he still has some degree of ducal status not shared with commoners. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:48, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Sir, I'm going to need you to put down the original research and back away slowly from the keyboard. —  Scott  •  talk  23:06, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Then source your claim that there is nothing notable about a guy whom multiple sources describe as "Duke of Manchester". The Roll is clear that he's not on the Roll, but it's stilll far from clear just what the Roll means overall. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:12, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * No, it's your turn to do some explaining now. I've already conclusively demonstrated that the highest authority in the land - literally - does not call this man "Duke". The onus here is upon you to provide a reason why we would. No "what if"s or "there might be"s. A solid, unequivocal, known-fact-based reason. I'm waiting. —  Scott  •  talk  23:33, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Fortunately the world is not as you would 'if' it. John lilburne (talk) 22:20, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, a good reason to call him Duke is that the RSs make it clear that he has used that title in Australia, Canada and the U.S. Whether that title has any meaning there or in England (where it seems he does not currently have the right after 2004 to demand to be called Sir) is unduly legalistic. Dingo1729 (talk) 01:22, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * According to Montagu himself that is completely untrue. See link I'm posting further down this page. —  Scott  •  talk  23:21, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Here is a copy of a 1997 letter from Montagu, in which he signs himself "Viscount Mandeville Baron Montagu 13th Duke of Manchester" (and a Californian address). Andy Dingley (talk) 09:37, 27 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep as the subject is notable per WP:GNG. However, as a second choice, redirect to Duke of Manchester so that the article can be re-created if further news coverage of him appears. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 13:34, 24 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete, not notable and Wikipedia is not a tabloid. Crotalus Horridus puts it very well above. Bishonen &#124; talk 16:20, 24 June 2013 (UTC).


 * Delete. Bloodlines and gossip are not a sufficient basis to expose someone(who has not sought the limelight) to a wikipedia biography.  Kablammo (talk) 16:52, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Per Jim Hawkins (radio presenter), AfD 1, AfD 2, AfD 3, WP:Deletion review/Log/2012 April 2, WP:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive 67 a UK subject who (very clearly) does not wish to have an article about themselves is forced to endure one. Why, apart from canvassing the AfD nominator directly at Wikipediocracy, is this one any different?
 * Also, at a high enough level, bloodlines are a sufficient reason to have an article, that's what Prince Edward is for. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:33, 24 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep he's a Duke, whether he wants to act like one or not. The sourcing to The Daily Telegraph and Daily Mail and published book source are adequate.  Closing admin should consider vote stacking from Wikipediocracy.  At worst, redirect to Duke of Manchester. Barney the barney barney (talk) 17:41, 24 June 2013 (UTC)  I also have to point out that he has provided material for his entry in Who's Who, which makes him a "public figure" in my book. Barney the barney barney (talk) 17:51, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete Being a nob does not confer notability especially when he does not exercise any of the privileges of the title. There is also sufficient dispute about the accuracy of some of the newspaper reports that I don't think that Wikipedia should provide its imprimatur to the claims made therein.--Peter cohen (talk) 19:21, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete, per Dan Murphy. Listen, if he does something of note, then by all means. But what, he's been married a few times? Been in jail? This has happened to millions of people... Why should this one be singled out? Santa Claus of the Future (talk) 22:53, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * "if he does something of note, " He has, and it was duly noted by a number of national newspapers. That's how WP:N & WP:RS works. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:01, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't see how Wikipedia being beholden to every stupid newspaper decision is a good idea. Some editorial discretion should be required of us editors. Santa Claus of the Future (talk) 22:32, 25 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep Appears to be the head of the Montagu family, an historical significant noble clan; and slightly wayward Dukes are always tremendous fun, ref his brief term in prison. There are few Dukes who can claim that. Irondome (talk) 02:01, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * "Tremendous fun"? I don't think "fun" is quite the right word to describe longstanding BLP violations, like listing minors' birth dates based on primary sources. Andreas JN 466 09:49, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. Consensus practice is clearly to treat such titleholders as notable. Well-sourced reports of bad behavior and criminal behavior are not, in this context, justification for deletion of the article. I'm in sympathy with a comment some time ago, which I can't track down, that being a descendent of a medieval war criminal shouldn't generate notability, but that's not something to be settled here. I also note that one news account cited above identifies him as having been a member of the House of Lords, so he would also be notable as having been a member of a national legislature. And the story of him putting his title up for sale might have inspired a story line in Doonesbury, where Zonker bought a similar title. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:42, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Being the descendant of a medieval war criminal doesn't convey notability. Being part of a contemporary socio-political system that still rewards descendants of medieval war criminals and grants them special status, that's what conveys notability. Britain does still work on that basis. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:45, 25 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. Dukes, and people descended from dukes, are noble and are usually notable. Also, if he's not the current Duke of Manchester, who is?-- Auric    talk  03:06, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The only specific notability guideline is a failed proposal, Notability (royalty), which WP:Notability (nobility) redirects to. There's inherent notability for peers with seats in the House of Lords, but without that inheritance of a title isn't clear evidence of meeting the guidelines, even if the title is notable - evidence of significant coverage is needed. Peter&#160;James (talk) 23:12, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment Anyone voting in this discussion should read the comments being by Montagu himself ("Mancunium") about the accuracy of the newspaper claims before commenting here. They appear to be propagating a number of falsehoods, which we should not be repeating. —  Scott  •  talk  23:21, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Errors are a reason to fix it, not to delete it.
 * I'd also remind you that we have a clear COI account at Wikipediocracy (who might be Montagu, but refers to himself in the 3rd person) claiming that usually reliable sources are wrong, yet failing to give solid evidence to the contrary. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:40, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * No. Once you correct the biggest error in this article - the claim that this guy is a peer - it no longer has a reason to exist. How the hell is it a "COI" for someone to point out massive errors in their own biography? (Also, try actually reading the thread. All of it. It is Montagu.) And what is this "solid evidence to the contrary"? You want him to prove a negative? He was the one who pointed out that he's not on the Roll of the Peerage. —  Scott  •  talk  00:05, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It's unfortunate for Mr. Montagu that his past bad behaviour keeps following him around. If he wants to not be connected to it he can use the very, very simple expedient of simply not going around telling people that he's the Duke of Manchester. After all he seems to be half saying that is what he wants. But he also wants to keep whatever petty advantage he gets from the title. He has the right to sink into deserved obscurity, but to do that he needs to stop publicizing himself. He needs to take action, not Wikipedia. I'm surprised that some people believe what he says is gospel truth. After reading Wikipediocracy the Daily Mail looks more trustworthy. Dingo1729 (talk) 03:12, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * For as long as an unconfirmed identity on an open forum site persists in insulting WP editors, rather than providing any sources to the contrary of the Telegraph et al., then he's still not making any convincing case. Andy Dingley (talk) 06:06, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * How the hell is it a "COI" for someone to point out massive errors in their own biography? - Tampering with your own bio is the very definition of COI, in my book. Mind you: it can be a good thing that errors are pointed to us by the bio subject, but still COI is. -- Cycl o pia talk  15:13, 26 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep Assumming it to be correct that he  was at some time a member of the House of Lords, it meets our rule about national level legislatures, which is sufficient to decide the matter. Myself, I consider that Dukes in countries where such are legally recognized titles are notable by our usual practice,(any instances in the past where articles on British Dukes were deleted?)  and people with enough publicity for claiming to be dukes by a common sense extension.  DGG ( talk ) 23:30, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The 12th Duke was a member of the House of Lords, until the House of Lords Act 1999. there's no Duke of Manchester (either 12th or 13th) listed at List of elected hereditary peers under the House of Lords Act 1999 or By-elections to the House of Lords. Peter&#160;James (talk) 23:44, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * We're now starting to get pile-on voters who don't do even the slightest shred of due diligence before deciding that this meritless scandal sheet masquerading as a biography needs to be kept in perpetuity. —  Scott  •  talk  00:08, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * "pile-on" ? You mean the way that the two most outspoken calls for deletion here, you and Dan, are from the people most active at Wikipediocracy? Andy Dingley (talk) 09:22, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for making it crystal clear that your intent in keeping this article is motivated not by a desire to improve the project, but by a dislike of the website on which it was first raised as an issue. —  Scott  •  talk  11:06, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: Andy Dingley and Scott have each posted 13 times in this discussion, mostly arguing with each other. I think both of you have made your positions clear and offered all possible arguments for them. Maybe time to leave it to other people. It's already taxing enough to read right through this thread. Bishonen &#124; talk 10:43, 26 June 2013 (UTC).
 * Thanks for offering to stuff a sock in my mouth, but I respectfully decline. If it's "taxing" to you, there are plenty of other things you could be doing on Wikipedia. —  Scott  •  talk  11:03, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * LOL. No, I can stand it, thanks. What I meant by "taxing" was that swamping by the two of you is making it more and more unlikely that others will be tempted to take in this discussion and contribute to it. It's currently seven screenfuls on my good big monitor. But I will take my own advice and say no more. Bishonen &#124; talk 11:54, 26 June 2013 (UTC).
 * There is no need for that kind of response to a reasonable request. If you disagree with this request, you can decline in a civil manner.  Gamaliel  ( talk ) 20:53, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Utter tripe. "Shut up" is not a reasonable request. —  Scott  •  talk  20:57, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Sometimes you get into a heated argument with someone and the argument just gets stuck in a repetitive back and forth. It's at that point that you should realize you've made your point, there is no further point to make, and there is no point in continuing the same repetitive arguments. That is the time to step away from your keyboard for a bit.  Gamaliel  ( talk ) 21:28, 26 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. He has generated his own notability.  Gamaliel  ( talk ) 20:52, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment As there is no legal basis for referring to this individual as "Duke of Manchester" (see discussion above regarding the Roll of the Peerage) I have accordingly moved the article to Alexander Montagu. —  Scott  •  talk  21:40, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete: When excluding the consideration of his title, there are no factors that make the Duke of Manchester notable. He is not an MP. He is not an executive editor. He does not lead a company with several hundred employees. In other words, he is not what I call a power person. However, in a traditional class society like the British, he enjoys high social status and influence; newspapers would not write about him if he hadn't got status and influence. ... If the title itself makes the Duke notable, this biography would still be problematic, as there are several claims and&mdash;on the other extreme&mdash;almost no reliable sources. A basic criterion should be that basic information reaches a reasonable degree of consensus. Oppositely of this, many contributors cannot even decide whether he is a duke or not (which he is). — Breadbasket 00:31, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment According to Burke´s and Debretr´s  he is Duke of Manchester. Question is: Can he be duke without be Peer? By my opinion, yes.--Yopie (talk) 01:46, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - The duke is not a notable person, yes he has been noted in the gutter press but only in relation to whatever scraps of titillation those rags cann pick up - that leads to an inevitable WP:NPOV violation, the only way to avoid which is to remove the secondary sourced material leaving a non-notable remaindervsourced to primaries. Delete it just now if a neutral biography appears later then consider whether it should be recreated. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 05:21, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The Daily Telegraph is hardly a 'gutter press' rag'! Andy Dingley (talk) 09:37, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Any definition I can find of "Gutter Press" points to the nature of the journalist's investigation - not the nature of where it is published. While some newspapers are identified with the the term it's because they rely on that style of journalism. In this case the article does fit the definition of "Sensationalist articles often focusing on the private lives of individuals." If it's going to print sensationalist nonsense about a nobody then the Telegraph deserves to be called a "Rag". Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 21:26, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * So the Telegraph becomes a tabloid because it prints non-notable gossip, and he's non-notable because only tabloids mention him? Nice circular logic. Are you applying it to Burke's and Debrett's too? Andy Dingley (talk) 22:36, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * How can it become a tabloid without changing paper size? Your argument is just making you look silly, he's not notable because he's been noted in relation to one sensationalist story - I'm sure there are thousands of people out there in similar circumstances who don't get articles because they don't happen to be dukes and it's the reason we have a BLP1E policy. Burke's and Debretts are primary sources and they certainly don't speak to either notability and do not provide enough information to base an article on. Again we do not write a biography of everyone who is in their guides (and some who are notable and in the guides don't have it mentioned in their articles.) Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 05:47, 28 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - The subject is insufficiently notable. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 15:30, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Easy keep - meets our standards of coverage in the press and in books, whatever I may think of hoi aristoi and their foibles. -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  17:27, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete Not notable on any wider stage. Intothatdarkness 17:41, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - "When closing an AfD about a living person whose notability is ambiguous, the closing administrator should take into account whether the subject of the article being deleted has asked that it be deleted." &mdash; Deletion Guidelines . Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:42, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * "Take into account" and "agree with the request" are two very different things. One can take into account, and then still decide for retention. -- Cycl o pia talk  13:05, 28 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. Let's look at this properly, shall we. He is not a Duke, nor is he a peer - so there's no notability from that regard. Wikipedia may be about verifiability, and not truth, but I'm pretty sure we can tell that the source made an error. Being of a notable family lineage is definitely not grounds for notability - see WP:NOTINHERITED. The Daily Mail is not a reliable source, and I facepalmed when I saw someone referring to it as such. The AAP source is reasonably reliable, and isn't purely routine, so that's an OK source, although it is quite tabloid-esque. That said, it's for just one event. The Age (Melbourne) was a local source to the event that it describes, so doesn't construe notability. We can leave the Peerage sources aside - they're not going to show any further notability. The Daily Telegraph source is for exactly the same event as the AAP source, so that doesn't go any further towards notability. It's irrelevant that those two sources happen to mention previous convictions as well. Essentially, it's a BLP that reads like an attack page, which would be enough to remove it on its own, regardless of sourcing. The reliable, national-level coverage is centred around one event, and appears to not have been sustained. So, this article should go. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 14:01, 28 June 2013 (UTC)


 * 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.