Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simon Abney-Hastings, 15th Earl of Loudoun


 * 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. Lankiveil (speak to me) 07:47, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Simon Abney-Hastings, 15th Earl of Loudoun

 * – ( 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) 15:15, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep, notable per WP:N, although sources need to be improved. As the senior descendant of George Plantagenet, 1st Duke of Clarence, he is arguably a claimant to the throne. See Alternative successions of the English crown. NB 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) 08:02, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 8 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete, not notable in his own right. This is an ordinary non-public person who by accident of birth has inherited a title. A listing in the Earl of Loudoun article should be sufficient. Hack (talk) 12:34, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment, he is not listed on the Roll of the Peerage so is therefore not officially entitled to be referred to as the Earl. Hack (talk) 14:18, 9 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep per Moonraker. Clearly notable, as a claim on the English throne. There has been a TV program about him, and lots of press coverage. The sources need improving, but that should not be too difficult. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  23:17, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment I have no opinion here, but I am pretty certain the TV program (Tony Robinson's) was actually about his late father. Frickeg (talk) 09:44, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep The subject meets the criteria of WP:BASIC, and this perhaps would be more apparent if more secondary sources were added.–Kiwipat (talk) 17:43, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep Per JW, flor the higher nobility we should continue the series of articles. They would in general always have been notable even if not "legislators," though that was a conveneint shorthand in the past.  DGG ( talk ) 03:27, 11 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) 08:31, 14 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.