Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allen Bathurst, 9th Earl Bathurst


 * 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. slakr \ talk / 05:47, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Allen Bathurst, 9th Earl Bathurst

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

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) 15:33, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep, prominent and plainly notable landowning peer, although page badly needs inline citations and sources need to be improved. NB also the comment of Jimbo Wales at 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) 07:41, 9 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 8 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete definitely fails WP:GNG and WP:BLP. "Being a landlord" and "being born" cannot mean notability. For the sake of completeness a row in a table is enough. --Vituzzu (talk) 23:44, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * 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) 08:28, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Your argument is invalid, we are not dealing with peerage but with almost empty useless pages. --Vituzzu (talk) 10:56, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep -- I think that ownership of Cirencester Park (country house) and the estate that goes with it is about sufficient to mmake him notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:39, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * 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) 10:41, 18 March 2014 (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.