Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christopher Paulet, Earl of Wiltshire


 * 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   merge to Nigel Paulet, 18th Marquess of Winchester. Rounding to merge slakr  \ talk / 05:32, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Christopher Paulet, Earl of Wiltshire

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Courtesy Earl and heir to the Maquess of Winchester, a hereditary title of no constitutional significance. Unlikely to meet notability guidelines as a musician as I am unable to find any coverage of this on google. Flaming Ferrari (talk) 16:44, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Merge to Nigel Paulet, 18th Marquess of Winchester, as the only citation offered here refers to both. A separate page may be needed in due course but probably isn't needed now. NB, Flaming Ferrari, your "Maquess of Winchester" sounds like the name of an English peer confused by the French Resistance. In my view, you are wrong about "a hereditary title of no constitutional significance", see Marquess of Winchester. Moonraker (talk) 07:16, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 9 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete definitely fails WP:GNG and WP:BLP. Amateur musician activity is not relevant at all, while "being born" cannot mean notability. For the sake of completeness a row in a table is enough. --Vituzzu (talk) 23:25, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Merge with his father -- still NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:45, 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.