Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Keith Arbuthnott, 17th Viscount of Arbuthnott


 * 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) 16:49, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Keith Arbuthnott, 17th Viscount of Arbuthnott

 * – ( 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) 14:09, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 8 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) 12:04, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete definitely fails WP:GNG and WP:BLP, for the sake of completeness a row in a table is enough. Also this page is almost tautological. --Vituzzu (talk) 23:08, 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) 08:36, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Your argument is invalid, we are not dealing with peerage but with almost empty useless pages. --Vituzzu (talk) 10:50, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - meets WP:N; whether they sit in the House of Lords or not is not grounds for establishing notability.  SagaciousPhil   -  Chat  12:20, 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) 10:59, 18 March 2014 (UTC)