Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexander Montagu, 13th Duke of Manchester (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Katietalk 16:34, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Alexander Montagu, 13th Duke of Manchester
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

As far as I can tell from the revision history, this BLP was deleted on 28 Jun 2013, citing the individual's lack of notability. Immediately afterwards, User:Nick, who deleted the article, created a redirect to Duke of Manchester. Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alexander_Montagu,_13th_Duke_of_Manchester&oldid=561991397 On 18 Sep 2015, User:Wikimandia restored the article, claiming that during the 26 months between June 2013 and September 2015, the individual now "definitely meets" WP:GNG. Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alexander_Montagu,_13th_Duke_of_Manchester&oldid=681619206 This caused some brawling among Wikipedia contributors, but in the end, the restored article remained intact. In addition to the individual's lack of notability, it seems like the article was (and still is) used to target/attack the individual with libel etc. by people who dislike him from the sole fact that he has inherited a peerage title, and there were also concerns as to the individual's children, who were (and still are) presented with full names, dates of birth, and places of birth and claimed to be illegitimate/the result of a void, bigamous marriage. I can't see what has made the individual notable after the first deletion. Moreover, there still seem to be problematic WP:BLP issues regarding both the individual and his children. I think there should have been a discussion before restoring the article back in 2015. For these two reasons, I hereby nominate it for deletion. Brox Sox (talk) 18:54, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. Favonian (talk) 20:45, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep There have been multiple newspaper articles about this individual; to me, that counts as significant coverage. All of the information appears to be from public sources; none of it refers to individuals who are currently minors. Brox Sox seems concerned as to how readers might use the information they find here (although no evidence of wrong-doing is provided). Noel S McFerran (talk) 22:01, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTNEWS. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:17, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete 'Weak keep - NOTNEWS and 1BLP1E only apply to single incidents, not to a longs series of scandals caused by a person over a lifetime. He appears to be eminently notable by way of significant coverage over many years in reliable sources. There are fewer than 40 British dukes. Bearian (talk) 17:30, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * User:Bearian, there seems to be a mismatch between your bolded recommendation and the rest of your comment. I would point out that WP:BLP, which was invoked above, is much wider than just WP:BLP1E. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:12, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I meant weak keep - tells you how deletionist I've become! Bearian (talk) 13:02, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:19, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:21, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:21, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep Sustained Australian, British and American news coverage over many years. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 13:20, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete as to the children. Information about their names, dates of birth, and places of birth isn't covered by the individual's alleged personal notability. Displaying "2" in the infobox should suffice, cf. comparable BLPs. This is also the BLP rule of thumb. (For example, Madonna is listed with "6" children.) I observe that three out of five paragraphs are dedicated to the children, in particular the son, including the claim that they be the "illegitimate" offspring of a "void, bigamous" marriage. There's also something that appears to be WP:OR and likewise lacks WP:RS. ("As his parents were not lawfully married at the time of his birth, he is neither entitled to the style of "Viscount Mandeville", and nor is he eligible to inherit the dukedom. This is because his father did not obtain a divorce from his first wife until 1996, three years after his second marriage.") In its current state, the BLP violates WP:BLPPRIMARY ("Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth, ..."). Brox Sox (talk) 16:12, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Incubate (move to the draft namespace for the original creator to improve the BLP) as to the individual. It should be explained, justified, and sourced why the individual is notable. Is because he is a duke? No, according to some participants in this discussion. It looks like the first AfD discussion landed on the same conclusion, establishing that the individual is not notable in the sole role of duke, a consensus that remains in force until a new consensus is reached. Is it because he has received broad press coverage of his criminal and non-criminal yet "scandalous" activities? Yes, according to ditto. My argument is that press coverage itself normally doesn't establish notability, but rather the activities in question. The individual was accused of firing a speargun at someone 1984, was sentenced and jailed for several instances of fraud in Australia 1985-1991, and was—two decades later—sentenced for one instance of fraud in the United States 2013 (committed 2011). Of course, this is a long criminal record, but it's not much longer than quite many commoners have, without the latter being awarded their own Wikipedia BLPs. Thus, my contention is that although not expressed (admitted) by participants in this discussion, the individual's ducal title (not his crime) is their real argument for notability. A factor to consider in this respect is whether he, beyond passively inheriting a peerage, actively has sought social influence or political power, be it, by taking seat in the House of Lords, guesting TV programmes or calling newspapers. As far as I can tell from the current BLP, the individual has not approached the public. Summarised, "a low-profile person who by law inherited a peerage and who has done dumb things in life" doesn't meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability. Even if he be notable, WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE applies. Not least, I'm concerned that this BLP might render an imbalanced impression of the individual. The information is overall negative, violating WP:BLPBALANCE, suggesting that the BLP actually be an WP:ATTACK. Related to this, I think the detailedness of the criminal offenses should be trimmed and generalised. Now, each account is elaborated with such a zeal (e.g., "arrested again in Brisbane", "passing a $3,575 check") that this not only dominates the BLP but also gets WP:SENSATIONAL, simultaneously violating WP:EXCESS. Brox Sox (talk) 16:12, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * By the way, is the BLP factually correct? It says that the individual was sentenced to three years of prison in Australia 1985, emigrated from Australia to the US 1986, was arrested in Australia 1991, fathered a son in the US 1992, and got married in the US 1993. How could he emigrate to the US one year after being sentenced to three years of prison? And how could he afford shuttling between Australia and the US if he were so broke that he had to write false cheques? Of course, all of this is possible, but it must be explained and sourced, be it, why the individual seemingly was released from jail in 1986. Was the sentence actually a suspended one? Or good conduct time? In sum, this BLP is very problematic. Brox Sox (talk) 16:12, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I gave it a fix. If the BLP stays this way, without the children and with a generalised summary of the individual's criminal offenses, I'm more inclined to vote "Keep". But I'm still not sure about his notability though. Brox Sox (talk) 16:43, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep per Noel S McFerran - there is definite coverage by multiple external sources. Some of the issues raised are issues about the content that can be resolved by editing the article, they aren't reasons to delete the article. Deus et lex (talk) 23:05, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep The duke meets WP:GNG.86.38.72.142 (talk) 12:39, 13 June 2022 (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.