Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Herbert, 8th Earl of Carnarvon


 * 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) NorthAmerica1000 21:07, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

George Herbert, 8th Earl of Carnarvon

 * – ( 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) 15:34, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep, notable per WP:N, although sources need to be improved. A major landowner (and godson of HM the Queen) who owns a tremendous collection of Egyptian antiquities and the house used as the location of Downton Abbey. 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) 07:37, 9 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 8 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. Clearly meets the general notability guidelines. And a quick look at Google reveals the existence of numerous other sources. Cindy  ( talk ) 20:09, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete definitely fails WP:GNG and WP:BLP. Living in a place used to make a movie and "being born" cannot mean notability. For the sake of completeness a row in a table is enough. --Vituzzu (talk) 23:45, 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 -- Being owner of Highclere, a great mansion, and presumably an estate to go with it is sufficient for me to keep it. The impact of the filming of the TV series on the family has also been covered on TV.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:43, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep per Moonraker and Peterkingiron. Also, he was the star of a documentary on PBS about the making of Downton Abbey.  IMHO, earls are high up enough on the peerage as to be notable. Bearian (talk) 19:36, 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) 10:47, 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.