Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Henry Scudamore-Stanhope, 9th Earl of Chesterfield


 * 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) &mdash;  Yash! (Y) 00:06, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Henry Scudamore-Stanhope, 9th Earl of Chesterfield

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Lack of notability, sufficient sources, context. JustBerry (talk) 03:12, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:09, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:09, 30 April 2015 (UTC)


 * keep How is an earl not notable? Andy Dingley (talk) 14:58, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. As a member of the House of Lords, clearly meets WP:POLITICIAN. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:59, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:00, 30 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I won't disagree that the article definitely needs improvement, but past or present members of the British House of Lords are always notable enough for Wikipedia articles. The holding of a seat in that body satisfies WP:NPOL #1 right on its face, and Wikipedia does not apply secondary standards to separate members of the same legislative body into "notable" vs. "non-notable" camps — all members of a national legislative house, with no exceptions for any reason ever, are always appropriate article topics. Keep. Bearcat (talk) 23:25, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. User:JustBerry, there are categories, athletes who win major competitions, or place at the Olympics, Bishops, Princes Regnant (Henry of Isenburg-Covern), Members of the House of Lords in which individuals get kept automatically.  There are quite a number of such categories.  You have, in a scan of only the first 50 entries on you recent edits page, nominated individuals in each of the categories I mention for deletion.  Please slow down,  starting AFDs in such long-standing, automatic-keep categories is not a useful contribution.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:51, 1 May 2015 (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.