Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rupert Edward Ludlow Bathurst, 4th Viscount Bledisloe


 * 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 \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 09:52, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Rupert Edward Ludlow Bathurst, 4th Viscount Bledisloe

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Another non-notable peer, never was a member of the House of Lords Passportguy (talk) 15:14, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete or redirect to Viscount Bledisloe. Non-notable. Any material on him can be added to the Viscount Bledisloe article. Tryde (talk) 15:18, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per complete lack of notability. ╟─ Treasury Tag ► prorogation ─╢ 16:02, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete or Redirect, per nominator.  Phoe  talk  16:04, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:56, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * He is relevant as viscount!Max Mux (talk) 17:58, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No he isn't. Being a viscount does mot make him inherent notability. As he has no other notable achievements to his name, he fails WP:BIO Passportguy (talk) 18:01, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, complete lack of notability. Ironholds (talk) 18:20, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. The title might be notable, but thus far, the sole notability the article claims is that he was born. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:46, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I am unable to find any independent reliable sources that document this person in depth. The source cited in the article is both lacking in depth and suspect as to its reliability.  (It cites a 2004 e-mail message as supporting evidence for its statements of events that purportedly happened in 2009.)  The Primary Notability Criterion is not satisfied. Delete. Uncle G (talk) 14:33, 12 June 2009 (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.