Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vicary Gibbs, 6th Baron Aldenham (2nd nomination)


 * 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The result was keep (withdrawn). Daniel (talk) 01:32, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Vicary Gibbs, 6th Baron Aldenham
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log )

Notability is not given due to title or family as per WP:BIOFAMILY. Current sources are not really RS and simply list Gibbs as a hereditary peer with his title etc. I cannot seem to find any other sources discussing Gibbs bar a small entry in a trade journal (Contify Energy News) regarding his appointment as CFO of an oil and gas company. This hardly confers notability. In the previous AfD discussion for this page a keep decision was reached due to Gibbs' time in the House of Lords, as per WP:POLITICIAN. However Gibbs was in the House of Lords for just 3 years (24 July 1986 - 11 November 1999) in which time he attended parliament just 12 times and never voted. That is certainly not a notable political career. As far as my research can tell, he has never been written about in a political context. I cannot imagine a person with a similar record and coverage from another country being deemed notable. Vladimir.copic (talk) 03:21, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Withdrawn by nominator as my esteemed colleagues below have correctly identified that my issue is with the negligently low standards of WP:POLITICIAN. In the context of House of Lords peers this seems quite ridiculous as often Lords inherited their political seat and many times never even voted or engaged in politics let alone do anything else notable. I’m sure having Wikipedia pages nicely sures up their reputation though. Vladimir.copic (talk) 13:20, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:43, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:43, 20 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep – as reflected in WP:NPOL, there's longstanding consensus that national-level legislators are de facto notable. And that guideline was applied less than two months ago with regard to this very article, resulting in a clear keep consensus. Renominating so quickly after a firm keep vote is generally discouraged, particularly when nothing has changed. The nominator's objection seems to have less to do with this article and more with NPOL itself. But unless and until NPOL is changed, I'll continue to support keeping this article so "that our coverage of major political offices, incorporating all of the present and past holders of that office, will be complete regardless" of the perceived sourcing issues. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:24, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. Clearly notable per WP:POLITICIAN as a member of a national legislature. This even covers members of rubber-stamping legislatures in totalitarian countries, so it clearly covers the House of Lords. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:07, 21 July 2021 (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.