Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Randal Alexander McDonnell, 10th Earl of Antrim


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. If interested, begin a Merge/Redirect discussion on the article talk page. Liz Read! Talk! 00:46, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Randal Alexander McDonnell, 10th Earl of Antrim

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

Nobleman from the peerage of Ireland, but without enough SIGCOV to justify a standalone article: fails WP:BIO / WP:GNG. BEFORE didn't turn up more sources than what is in the article, see the source assessment below.

Being a Deputy Lieutenant (DL) isn't particularly useful to assert notability either, since they are subordinates to the ceremonial county's Lord-Lieutenant, "an honorary titular position usually awarded to a retired notable person in the county". In past AFDs, several biographies carrying the honorary title of DL resulted in deletion (see, for example, Articles for deletion/Sir James Stronge, 2nd Baronet, Articles for deletion/Richard Birdwood, Articles for deletion/Commander Herbert Roff Newton). If it were newsworthy, one would expect some sort of coverage related to this, but it doesn't seem appear to exist in this specific case. Pilaz (talk) 17:10, 13 September 2023 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:07, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: A previous iteration of this article was deleted after a AfD discussion last year. See Articles for deletion/Randal McDonnell, 10th Earl of Antrim. Pilaz (talk) 02:06, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Royalty and nobility, Ireland, United Kingdom,  and Northern Ireland. Pilaz (talk) 17:10, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment: Clear WP:ATD is a redirect/merge to Earl of Antrim. Curbon7 (talk) 19:48, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
 * No objection to redirecting to Earl of Antrim from me. Pilaz (talk) 02:02, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep, as I see enough for compliance with the WP:GNG. I do not agree with the table on Debrett's People of Today, which is surely a reliable secondary source, or Agriland, which is an important agricultural publisher (see here). I would not say that article has only a "passing mention", as it is about a project by Dunluce. Other sources help to provide significant coverage collectively. The GNG is of course not about importance, but I doubt if many Deputy Lords Lieutenant of counties are non-notable. Moonraker (talk) 19:52, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Debrett's is a tertiary source, as confirmed by this RSN discussion. Its main problem is the lack of SIGCOV of the Earl (DOB, parents and children are routine info). The argument that a person can inherit notability from a project is a typical WP:NOTINHERITED argument and is not grounded in policy, and I don't know how you can trust a publication that calls the current Earl the "15th Earl of Antrim". Besides, he only gets a namecheck. Significant coverage needs to be more than a trivial mention. Pilaz (talk) 02:00, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
 * New sources added from Spear's Wealth Management Survey and The Waterlow Stock Exchange Yearbook, providing significant coverage of his city career. On your link,, with the greatest respect, a discussion led by you which is about a different publication isn't an authority on Debrett's People of Today, you may like to review that article. Moonraker (talk) 01:23, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the addition. Spear's Wealth Management Survey doesn't help meet the GNG since it just seems to paraphrase Dunluce's workplace bioblurb in length and content (i.e. the reference to the "over 25 years" in the first sentence of both bioblurbs), which means Spear's blurb about McDonnell/Dunluce has independence problems from the subject. Secondly, it's not secondary: a secondary source, as defined in WP:NOR, ought to provide thought and reflection based on primary sources, of which there is none here. That's because Spear's acts as a tertiary source whose stated goal is to be a "guide" to private client advisers. I also don't think this kind of information is SIGCOV, but others can chime in on this.
 * The Waterlow Stock Exchange Yearbook is another yearbook, meaning it's also a tertiary source and is likely to not feature much beyond "contact information for over 1,000 advisers and a list of their corporate clients" . So, not secondary, and although I don't have access to his entry, almost certainly no SIGCOV in there (paper and ink are expensive). Wikipedia is not a directory, so I don't think using other directories makes for a great argument that the subject is notable. Pilaz (talk) 01:39, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
 * As for Debrett's People of Today, it acted in the same way as Who's Who, by asking biographees to provide their own biographical entries and update them each year . Entries cannot be independent from the subject if they are written by the subject themselves. And, again, not secondary, so no thoughts or reflection on the material presented. Pilaz (talk) 01:48, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: on "15th Earl of Antrim", it's common for peerages to have disputed numbering, when they have been created more than once for the same family. In this case "15th" is arrived at by counting from 1620 instead of 1785. Moonraker (talk) 01:04, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep as the article looks well sourced. However, I wouldn't oppose merging this article into Earl of Antrim in a "Present peer" section, as is done at Marquess of Anglesey. estar8806 (talk) ★ 01:13, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
 * , two questions: which reliable secondary sources provide in-depth coverage to help meet the GNG? And what information would you merge from the current article into a "present peer" section? Pilaz (talk) 21:51, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I think Estar8806 has put forward a reasonable proposal. If other users think that the article cannot be a standalone page, then it's better to redirect it to the page that covers all his predecessors. Keivan.f  Talk 23:17, 21 September 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.