Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Vernon Powys, 8th Baron Lilford


 * 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   delete. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:53, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Mark Vernon Powys, 8th Baron Lilford

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Not a member of the House of Lords. No other claim to notability. Only reference a self-publicised source. Tryde (talk) 06:48, 6 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment - since the House of Lords Act 1999, most Hereditary peers have not held office in the House of Lords. Formerly, all peers were automatically notable as politicians.  However, he could 'stand' for election to that body.  I think this case is without precedent.  What do we do? Bearian (talk) 19:48, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think all peers have been viewed as automatically notable but have been looked at on a case by case basis. If there were evidence of activity in the House of Lords they were deemed notable. There are nonetheless numerous articles on peers that contain only biographical material of minor relevance. In the case of the present Lord Lilford he is able to stand for election to the House of Lords but has not yet done so. As possible parliamentary candidates are not deemed notable the article should be deleted. Tryde (talk) 16:00, 9 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 10:12, 13 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - Burke's Peerage only lists the 7th Baron Lilford, no 8th, so either this article is bogus (I can't seem to find any obituary for the father, but he died in South Africa, so my cursory search may not have found it) or he's so unnotable that a major publication on this subject hasn't bothered to update his status in 7 years. Either way, this is not an article we need.  Grandmartin11 (talk) 21:38, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - per Nom's response comments on 9 August and Grandmartin11's commentary. Specifically, delete as non-notable BLP with no reliable sources. --Tgeairn (talk) 17:51, 21 August 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.