Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sir John Acland, 3rd Baronet


 * 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   redirect to Acland baronets. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:58, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Sir John Acland, 3rd Baronet

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Doesn't seem to meet WP:NOTABILITY. Boleyn (talk) 19:25, 3 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep Seems to meet WP:NOTABILITY having gained "significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time". Warden (talk) 21:27, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 4 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Acland baronets, which has already been done for 2nd baronet. The article indicates nothing but his genealogy.  Peterkingiron (talk) 12:16, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 16:25, 11 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I still say redirect. As the article exists at present, he has had no significant attention save in genealogical works.  Burke's Peerage says he died in his minority.  He was not even old enough to do anything to make him notable.  As he is clearly NN, we should not ahve a substantive article, but a redirect is cheap.
 * 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.