Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicholas Russell, 6th Earl Russell


 * 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. slakr \ talk / 03:37, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Nicholas Russell, 6th Earl Russell

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable hereditary Earl 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) 16:15, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:39, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:39, 8 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep Likely to be notable. All the same, someone should produce some reliable sources for this page, for now there are none at all. Moonraker (talk) 20:14, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment, NB the view of Jimbo Wales at Articles for deletion/Alexander Gordon, 7th Marquess of Aberdeen and Temair and elsewhere: "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." Moonraker (talk) 07:19, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete definitely fails WP:GNG and WP:BLP. Activist activity is not relevant at all, while "being born" cannot mean notability. For the sake of completeness a row in a table is enough. --Vituzzu (talk) 23:28, 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) 08:25, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Your argument is invalid, we are not dealing with peerage but with almost empty useless pages. --Vituzzu (talk) 10:53, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment -- I am dubious of the merits of having articles on all peers. Notability is not inherited.  Holding a title will be one pointer towards notablility and may help in a doubtful case, but if there is no estate; no mansion; and an ordinary job, I doubt we should keep man article.  In this case, apart from the title, he would clearly be NN.  Peterkingiron (talk) 15:55, 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) 10:39, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr  \ talk / 05:42, 22 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Note &mdash; please constrain arguments to policy and guideline rationales. In its current form, for example, it is also in danger of violating the policy of verifiability. -- slakr \ talk / 05:44, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Keep per my comments elsewhere on similar AfDs: earls are fairly high up in the peerage. Bearian (talk) 21:39, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep As members of the higher nobility in a country where such nobility has an active legal status, they're notable . when they were legislators it was automatic under WP:POLITICIAN, but it makes sense even now when when they are not.  DGG ( talk ) 00:38, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. Like DGG stated, nobility in the UK have an active legal status and most peers have articles on them. I would keep as to not break succession, but references need to be added. --PDX er1 (talk) 18:56, 26 March 2014 (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.