Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lord John FitzGerald


 * 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, without prejudice to possible merger, if further discussion supports such course.-- Kubigula (talk) 06:10, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Lord John FitzGerald

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Person does not meet notability criteria. Being a member of the FitzGerald family does not make you notable. Tryde (talk) 06:54, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 31 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep, but merge into his brother's article (Maurice_FitzGerald,_9th_Duke_of_Leinster); he is his brother's heir, and rewriting this from scratch when he succeeds will be a waste of effort. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:53, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talk about my edits? 08:34, 7 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - unless there is some particular problem (vandalism?) that suggests the article is difficult to maintain, I see no harm in it. Normally I would agree that younger sons of Dukes are not inherently notable, but in this case he is the heir presumptive.  Additionally, there has been an interesting challenge to the line of descent of this Dukedom based on an alleged faked death in the past.  As DNA evidence has emerged recently (2010) it seems that there is a significant chance that something interesting may happen here.  To hobbyist readers in this area, this is precisely the sort of thing that they turn to Wikipedia for - detailed information about people who would be difficult to research on your own.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:57, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Harmless -- We may want the article one day if he does outlive his brother. However, I do not like the presence of a succession box.  It may be appropriate for the heirs of monarchs, but not for peers.  Peterkingiron (talk) 15:59, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * But what has FitzGerald done to become notable in your opinion? He has served in the British Army - that doesn't make you notable. And would he be automatically notable if he succeeded in the dukedom - he would have no automatic seat in parliament. This would open up the floodgates - there are hundreds of heirs apparent and heirs presumptive that would then be considered notable. I suggest (as a compromise) that the material on FitzGerald is moved to the article on the dukedom. I also suggest that the material on the claim to the dukedom is moved to its own article. Tryde (talk) 07:16, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Then withdraw this AfD nomination, and let's move the contents. Since the American claimant is already mentioned in his brother's article, we don't need to move it. I'm not sure that they are notable enough for an article; they don't seem to have made anywhere near the progress of Arthur Orton, say. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:49, 14 January 2012 (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.