Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicholas Hill, 9th Marquess of Downshire (2nd nomination)


 * 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 no consensus‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. I closed the previous AFD as Redirect which was later undone. This time, there is more advocacy for Keeping this article. Those seeking to Redirect this article can propose this on the article talk page but this discussion needs to be closed. Liz Read! Talk! 03:50, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Nicholas Hill, 9th Marquess of Downshire
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

This article was recreated but still doesn't meet WP:BIO due to a lack of significant coverage from multiple, reliable secondary sources. The subject doesn't get a pass at WP:NPOL due to never sitting in the House of Lords.

The only piece of significant coverage for this individual comes from a local newspaper. A source assessment follows. See also the previous AfD for a review of other sources.

Pilaz (talk) 14:58, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility, Ireland,  and United Kingdom. Pilaz (talk) 14:58, 23 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep – Yes, never a member of the House of Lords, so it's just a question of WP:N and the GNG. Agreed that Who's Who does not count towards notability, but the articles in The Yorkshire Post do. The Tatler article does in fact mention the subject, as "the Marquess of Downshire" is this one. Not much there, but it verifies something in the article, which is what references do. Debrett's is independent of the subject and has editors. As I see it, he meets the test of WP:N, which is about verifiability and not importance. If the page is not kept, it is all relevant to Marquess of Downshire, a notable subject, and should be merged there, with a redirect, as the present peer is an integral part of that history. Moonraker (talk) 04:49, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The problem with Debrett's is the lack of WP:SIGCOV: you get a name, title, DOB and descendants on p. 2999, and that's it. This is routine information, hardly "more than a trivial mention". Even The Guardian agrees that this source is "a bible stripped back to its begats. Outsiders can be frustrated by the lack of the colourful narratives that they suspect must be behind a lot of the begetting." Debrett's also cannot count towards the GNG because it is not a secondary source: it's a tertiary source, much like other reference work. Pilaz (talk). 10:32, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Also, WP:NOTGENEALOGY. Family coverage on Wikipedia should only be included to support an already notable topic, so it seems odd to consider a WP:TERTIARY source like Debrett's with no SIGCOV enough. Pilaz (talk) 10:37, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete, one local piece with non-trivial coverage is not enough for GNG. Edit: Redirect. JoelleJay (talk) 23:39, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * you agree then that The Yorkshire Post is non-trivial coverage. It is a regional rather than local newspaper, and the GNG does not distinguish between national, regional, and local sources, so the question is whether it is a reliable source, and it meets all the tests. Pilaz says it is "significant coverage". And then there is Debrett's Peerage, which has biographies as well as genealogy. Pilaz does not dispute its reliability, and I agree, but there is a misunderstanding in the words "passing mention", as Debrett's has nearly half a page about the subject of the article, which is not trivial. NB, what the GNG requires is " in  that are " and defines "significant coverage" as —  "addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." Moonraker (talk) 18:39, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Since you seem to have access to it, what does Debrett's actually say beyond his genealogy, and is that info non-routine? WP:N requires article subjects also pass NOT. JoelleJay (talk) 00:26, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
 * it's a short biography. I would say more, but the copy I have access to is in a library in Oxford and I am in a different place now. Moonraker (talk) 20:53, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  14:58, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Marquess of Downshire - WP:ATD and plausible search term. Ingratis (talk) 08:25, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed,Rosguill talk 04:27, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Redirect as mentioned above -- Theoreticalmawi (talk) 16:38, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep per Moonraker. estar8806 (talk) ★ 19:37, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Relisting comment: 3rd and final relist. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,   ArcAngel    (talk) 02:46, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Marquess of Downshire. Spleodrach (talk) 19:04, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment - an ongoing RSN discussion on the nature of Debrett's Peerage has uninvolved editors stating this is a tertiary source. Pilaz (talk) 20:53, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Keep per Moonraker and from what I gather this is an active and notable person, much of the deletionist view is nitpicking about the importance and nature of sources. His activities are better sourced than the political careers of some elected hereditary peers in the House of Lords. Killuminator (talk) 18:38, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Surely, if we are nitpicking, you can tell us which sources help satisfy the GNG. Unless you are just arguing WP:ITSNOTABLE + WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Pilaz (talk) 00:01, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I could have done that but I'm not going to given your second sentence. Killuminator (talk) 04:22, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * It could have been helpful for the !keep case, because right now the rough consensus is that there's only one source which passes the GNG, which is the Yorkshire Post. Pilaz (talk) 09:49, 21 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep No one seems to disagree that The Yorkshire Post piece is solid, and Moonraker says Debrett's Peerage has a half-page biography of the subject. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 12:08, 21 August 2023 (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.