Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Anstruther-Gough-Calthorpe


 * 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. -- Cirt (talk) 14:08, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Richard Anstruther-Gough-Calthorpe

 * – ( View AfD View log ) •

This was an article, it was redirected to Anstruther-Gough-Calthorpe Baronets, the article has been restored, it should be redirected again so bringing it here for wider discussion. Baronets have no presumption of notability, and this article asserts zero notability and is little more than a family tree pretending to be an article. 2 lines of K 303  13:21, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree with nom. There's nothing notable here. I think saying that his father-in-law's grandfather was "somehow related to Jane Austen" is scraping the bottom of the notability barrel a little too much. This is the sort of content and writing that really this project does not need as a page. Lump him together with his relations by all means, but a page of his own? - well there is no justification and it's embarassing to read.  Giacomo   08:07, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete/redirect. fails WP:ARBBUTHNOT--Scott Mac 13:44, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. No claim of notability. Hans Adler 22:49, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Questions - why is only the second baronet nominated? In what ways is the article different to that of his father or his grandson? What is the particular policy that says that "baronets have no presumption of notability"? Beeswaxcandle (talk) 19:42, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Although this does not affect the notability of the article neither of the two accounts that have done the most work on the article will be participating in this discussion as User:LoveActresses is a sockpuppet of the indefinitely blocked user User:G.-M. Cupertino. Further the edits on the 5 November by the IP address 85.177.165.196 seem to me the work of the same person (is using the same references as LoveActresses has been placing on other pages). -- PBS (talk) 01:56, 6 November 2010 (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.