Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reginald Capell, 9th Earl of Essex

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. Nominator has withdrawn but the discussion has enough participation and has been open long enough for a "keep" close. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:38, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reginald Capell, 9th Earl of Essex

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Absolutely no assertion of notability. I may be unfamiliar with the consensus around articles about British peers, but there are an awful lot of them and they did exactly zero to get their titles. Nothing substantive is in this article other than the fact that he had this title. Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 00:57, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep was he in the House of Lords? He was eligible to take his seat. This helps the navigation device too. JJL (talk) 01:57, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep its about coverage, not accomplishments. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 07:56, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Coverage of what exactly? I am a person. Do I deserve coverage? Coverage vs. accomplishments doesn't really address the question of notability. I actually think this is a complex question, since I'm sure there are many British editors of wikipedia who would contend that a peerage is inherently notable, whereas to crass American me, it's like listing everyone with the last name "Standish" because they are all descendants of a famous guy. The question about the House of Lords is a good one, perhaps that would give an indication of notability. Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 08:22, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is not about deserving anything, it is about coverage in the media. No one has cared to write about you.--69.136.101.246 (talk) 05:22, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mmm not necessarily true. But I am not vain enough to write a wikipedia page about myself. And besides, you may notice that nobody has written about this guy in the media either. Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 05:57, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

--69.136.101.246 (talk) 05:22, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On the fence. Sourcing is heavily needed. Also, are we sure that his having been a member of the House of Lords (if he indeed has) is enough to assert his notability? McMarcoP (talk) 08:58, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - British peers are considered notable in themselves. Motmit (talk) 13:39, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Actually whether peers are inherently notable has been the subject of debate, but the subject does seem to pass WP:POLITICIAN by being a member of the House of Lords, a national office. I finally tracked down a source from Hansard here, that shows he made what would seem to be his maiden speech in 1971. (It also seems to be his only speech, as Hansard doesn't mention any other that I can find.) FlowerpotmaN·(t) 16:02, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:POLITICIAN - I know of some legislators who have never spoken on the floor of their chamber. Bearian (talk) 18:56, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Now that the article has been improved with citations that demonstrate he did other things besides being born, I think its fine to keep it!-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 19:27, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He was a member of the House of Lords, but just beyond that, there are sources which exist to verify his life. An obituary in the Times, entries in Burke's, Debrett's, and Who's Who, and so forth. Peers should be considered inherently notable because we can just about always find enough information about them to more or less justify an article, if we look for it. john k (talk) 02:01, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.