Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Pleydell-Bouverie, 9th Earl of Radnor


 * 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. Liz Read! Talk! 22:19, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

William Pleydell-Bouverie, 9th Earl of Radnor

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

This article was unprodded without a rationale (diff), so it's now at AfD. The article fails WP:BIO, because the subject of the article is not notable: he never sat in the House of Lords because he inherited his title in 2008, 9 years after the House of Lords Act 1999. Coverage is either not significant, not secondary, not independent, or not from reliable sources. The only acceptable source is Burke's Peerage, which is only reliable for genealogy (see WP:RSP). However, keeping this page only for genealogical reasons runs contrary to one of the policies of the encyclopedia, which is that Wikipedia is not a genealogy website.

Source assessment follows:

Pilaz (talk) 13:45, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. Pilaz (talk) 13:45, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Pilaz (talk) 13:45, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Pilaz (talk) 13:45, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete The article itself makes no claim to notability for Pleydell-Bouverie. My own searches uncovered nothing to indicate he is notable. Best I could find was a 2020 article from the deprecated Daily Mail - about his half-sister being jailed for assaulting police. That's saying something - this fails WP:BASIC. AusLondonder (talk) 16:44, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete when the best we can find is a tabloid article about a relative being jailed that incidentally mentions a person they do not meet any reasonable understanding of having the level of secondary source coverage we need to justify an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:23, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Earl of Radnor. HandsomeFella (talk) 21:04, 30 March 2022 (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.