Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Brudenell-Bruce, Earl of Cardigan


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Breadblade (talk) 16:41, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

David Brudenell-Bruce, Earl of Cardigan

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Nothing in the career of this heir to the Marquess of Ailesbury to suggest notability in his own right. Even if he assumes the hereditary title eventually this still carries with it no constitutional significance. Flaming Ferrari (talk) 16:51, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. Clearly meets the general notability guidelines. Cindy  ( talk ) 19:00, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't see how. Secretary and Member of regional Conservative Associations means nothing. Other than that has been Hereditary Warden of a forest, a witness to alleged police brutality, and has been most recently listed as a lorry driver and benefits claimant. Colourful, but none of this strikes me as independently noteworthy.Flaming Ferrari (talk) 19:27, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Your rationale seems to imply that we have applicable subject-specific or topical notability guidelines, i.e., WP:Notability (lorry driver) or WP:Notability (benefits claimant), criteria of which the subject fails to meet. However, we do have "general notability guidelines", which allow for establishing notability through significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. I would also say that a quick online search reveals the existence of additional sources. Cindy  ( talk ) 19:48, 8 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep, per Cindy's rationale. AfD nomination by a user who seems not to understand WP:GNG and other relevant guidelines.--ColonelHenry (talk) 21:13, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Question This man made the news headlines 7 years ago for making a gesture behind the back of David Cameron. There are probably at least 50 independent sources covering the story and guy in question such as  and . There is currently no article on this guy, but the feedback I am getting suggests that he too might meet WP:GNG. The clincher for many it seems, would be if he was also a courtesy earl. Flaming Ferrari (talk) 21:52, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * You may wish to read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, which shows why this type of reasoning is not generally well thought of. Whether we should or should not have an entry about some completely unrelated subject with very distinct differences from this case is interesting, but not relevant for the question of whether we should have this article.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:45, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. 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.  It strikes me as important to let the relevant wikiproject(s) know about these sorts of deletion proposals.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 03:33, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 9 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep per Jimbo, and as I've written at another AfD, earls are pretty high up in the aristocracy. Bearian (talk) 20:29, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete definitely fails WP:GNG and WP:BLP. Local politician and maybe someone who did a certain...gesture: not relevant at all, also "being born" cannot mean notability. For the sake of completeness a row in a table is enough. --Vituzzu (talk) 23:22, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * U|Vituzzu:Can you please point out how this article "fails WP:BLP"? Violations would need to be quite egregious for WP:BLP to be a valid deletion rationale. I'm not even seeing any minor violations. Joefromrandb (talk) 02:15, 20 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) 08:23, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Your argument is invalid, we are not dealing with peerage but with almost empty useless pages. --Vituzzu (talk) 10:53, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep -- I read this as a case of a man with an estate that is in grave financial trouble and in dispute with the estate trustees over their attempts to recuse something for the family. That may bne notable.  Peterkingiron (talk) 19:05, 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) 10:46, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep, per Cindy, et al. Clearly meets WP:GNG. "Fails WP:BLP" is mildly amusing; while violations should always be corrected/removed immediately, deleting the entire article is only done in the most extreme circumstances. Joefromrandb (talk) 02:08, 20 March 2014 (UTC)