Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christopher Charles Lyttelton, 12th Viscount Cobham


 * 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 / 05:58, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Christopher Charles Lyttelton, 12th Viscount Cobham

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable hereditary Viscount 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) 14:11, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep: the 1st to 11th Viscounts all have their own standalone articles; it would be a pity to delete the 12th just because of some supposed non-notability. . . Mean as custard (talk) 15:36, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment Well unless notability can be objectively established the article should be deleted. Keeping it because 11 of his ancestors have articles is inherently subjective. While the article may be of genealogical interest I would argue that unless notability can be established then it is not of encyclopedic value. Who's who lists his career highlights as Chairman and Chief Exec., NCL Investments, 1985–2002; Chairman: Octopus Eclipse, 2004–; Azure Wealth, 2012–. As none of these companies have articles in their own right it would seem that they are not especially noteworthy positions.Flaming Ferrari (talk) 15:49, 8 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep Appears to be notable. Flaming Ferrari, I am mystified by your idea of the meaning of WP:N. There is nothing in that policy which requires articles on people's companies to exist in Wikipedia, the policy is essentially about the existence of reliable sources. Moonraker (talk) 20:19, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment NB also the view stated by 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) 07:31, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete definitely fails WP:GNG and WP:BLP. "Being born" cannot mean notability while businessman activity is pretty "ordinary". For the sake of completeness a row in a table is enough. --Vituzzu (talk) 23:48, 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) 08:27, 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)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 8 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep -- He is a lot more notable than his predecessor. Any notability that his brother had was probably inherited from his wives.  The present lord Cobham is (or recently was) a leading member of the city firm of Smith and Williamson.   Peterkingiron (talk) 15:19, 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) 10:39, 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.