Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rhodri Philipps, 4th Viscount St Davids


 * 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 / 05:56, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Rhodri Philipps, 4th Viscount St Davids

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable hereditary Viscount 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) 14:24, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 8 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. The sources we have for the page already are all about this man's troubles, but they are generally good ones and indicate to me that he is likely to be notable per WP:N. Citations still needed for other details given on the page. Please note also the comment 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) 16:54, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete definitely fails WP:GNG and WP:BLP. "Having debts" and "being born" cannot mean notability. For the sake of completeness a row in a table is enough. --Vituzzu (talk) 23:31, 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) 08:35, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Your argument is invalid, we are not dealing with peerage but with almost empty useless pages. --Vituzzu (talk) 10:54, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep -- It sounds as if he has had a controversial career as an unsuccessful financier. I suspect that there is a fuller story to be told than the present stub.  I note that he is not in Who's Who.  Peterkingiron (talk) 18:01, 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) 10:43, 18 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.