Reason: Unnotable British nobleman, fails
WP:BIO due to a lack of significant coverage in independent, reliable, secondary sources. Doesn't meet
WP:NPOL either, since he never sat in the House of Lords due to inheriting his titles in 2012, way after the
House of Lords Act 1999. The 2014 AfD discussion was a
WP:ITSNOTABLE fest. Source assessment follows.
Reason: PROD was removed without a rationale. Unnotable British nobleman, fails
WP:BIO due to a lack of significant coverage in independent, reliable, secondary sources. Doesn't meet
WP:NPOL either, since he never sat in the House of Lords due to inheriting his titles in 2007, way after the
House of Lords Act 1999. Keeping this article for genealogy purposes got against our policy that
Wikipedia is not a genealogy website. Source assessment follows:
Reason: Non-notable nobleman from Scotland. Fails
WP:BIO, and in its current state goes against
WP:NOTGENEALOGY. This peer inherited his titles in 2015 and therefore never sat in the House of Lords, so
WP:NPOL can't be satisfied. Outside of Burke's Peerage, which is only reliable for genealogy per
WP:RSP, the remaining sources don't provide secondary, independent, reliable, and/or significant coverage.Source assessment follows:
Reason: 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:
Reason: Nobleman with no inherent notability, fails
WP:BIO. Never sat in the House of Lords (he inherited the title in 2000, one year after the
House of Lords Act 1999) so can't qualify for
WP:NPOL either. The two peerage websites in the article are deprecated per
WP:RSP, and Google News only returns a
passing mention for 1998, the year before his father lost his seat in the House of Lords. Previous AfD ended as no consensus in 2014.
Reason: It's been a while since the 2014 no consensus discussion. This nobleman fails our
notability guideline for biographies, and violates
WP:GENEALOGY in its current state, since 95% of the article is about the subject's family. The subject inherited the title in 2000, and therefore never sat in the House of Lords. The sources are deprecated or do not provide significant coverage, except one 1997 article which in my opinion helps meet
WP:GNG. However, the coverage is only about one event (
WP:BLP1E) and that it's not
WP:SUSTAINED. Source assessment follows.
Reason: Fairly
run-of-the-mill businessperson who is also a nobleman, but who never sat in the House of Lords because they inherited their title after the
House of Lords Act 1999. The sources on this person do not help confirm that the person is notable; only genealogy websites pop up, and the rest is not significant coverage, reliable, or independent from the subject.Source assessment follows:
Reason: British noblesman who fails
WP:BIO, in particular
WP:BASIC. Never sat in the House of Lords so cannot qualify for
WP:NPOL either. The London Gazette and Sydney Morning Herald sources are primary and do not provide significant coverage; and Debrett's only covers the subject's genealogy, which is insufficient to establish notability. BEFORE didn't turn up any reliable sources, with the exception of a
passing mention regarding his family's estate. Potential redirect target at
Marquess of Sligo.
Reason: Nobleman from Britain without a notability claim, fails
WP:BIO. Nobles are not inherently notable, and this one does not qualify for
WP:NPOL as he has never sat in the House of Lords. The sources found during my BEFORE were insufficient to establish notability: theeperage.com is unreliable per [[[WP:RSP]]; the Daily Mail was deprecated; the Telegraph
[1] and Wiltshire Live
[2] only give passing mentions. Possible redirect target:
Earl of Suffolk.
Reason: Fails
WP:BIO due to a lack of in-depth, secondary, independent, reliable coverage. The subject is a British nobleman who does not qualify for
WP:NPOL due to inheriting his current title in 2013. The sources in the article are a passing mention (obituary), a self-published peerage website, and a BEFORE only turned up a Spectator article
[3] which mentions him in one paragraph, which is insufficient given that
WP:SPECTATOR pieces are treated as opinion pieces. Possible redirect target:
Earl of Dudley.
Reason: Zero coverage, fails
WP:BIO. British nobles aren't inherently notable, and BEFORE didn't turn up any mention of the John Tottenham who succeeded his father in 2006 in reliable sources. Debrett's as the only source is problematic, since it only namechecks the subject's ancestry. The subject also never sat in the House of Lords, so they cannot qualify for
WP:NPOL either. Possible redirect target:
Marquess of Ely.
Reason: Irish peer, fails
WP:BASIC due to a lack of secondary, independent, reliable sources covering the subject in depth. Earned the title of marquess in 2005 and therefore cannot qualify for
WP:NPOL due to the
House of Lords Act 1999, which deprived them of a seat in the House of Lords.Source assessment follows:
Reason: This marquess fails
WP:BASIC, having earned no multiple, secondary, reliable, in-depth coverage. He never got to sit in the House of Lords and therefore cannot qualify for
WP:NPOL. While there is some passing coverage of the marquess in a handful of sources, he is never the subject of the article, and the amount of words dedicated to him in reliable sources never climb above 10% of the article's total. Arguably, an article about his mansion could be written, but at present the notability of the marquess is in my view not established. Possible redirect target:
Marquess Townshend.My (long) source assessment follows.
Reason: Seemingly non-notable Belgian boxer. Fails
WP:BASIC and
WP:NOLYMPICS. Competed at the 1920 Olympics but didn't make it past the round of 16, per
Belgium at the 1920 Summer Olympics. An extensive Google search result and Google Scholar search produced no results outside of wiki mirrors. If anybody else finds time, I believe a lot of athlete articles linked to
Belgium at the 1920 Summer Olympics need a notability check.
Reason: Fails
WP:GNG. Coverage is either not significant, not independent, not secondary, or not from reliable sources. The only claim to fame is being the tallest building in
Santa Clarita, California (pop. 200,000). WP:BEFORE only reveals spotty coverage from Santa Clarita Valley's local newspaper (The Signal), and coverage is
WP:MILL puff pieces which conveniently include the phone number of the hotel at the bottom:
they opened a bar!
new boss! etc. Not quite the fact-checking RS we would expect to have covered a notable location.
Reason: Fails
WP:RNEUTRAL. In 2022,
Trannyis an offensive and derogatory slur for a transgender individual. This redirect is from 2007, and it sits at the time of writing at 0 views in the past 30 days.
Reason: British nobleman, fails
WP:BIO: I found very little coverage in reliable sources for "Nicholas Hill", "Marquess of Downshire", and "Nick Downshire", and the little I found was passing mentions. British nobles aren't inherently notable. He also never sat in the House of Lords, so he cannot qualify for
WP:NPOL either.My source assessment follows:
Reason: This article was recreated in May 2023, but it still fails
WP:BASIC and
WP:ANYBIO. British peers are not inherently notable. Neville was also never elected to the House of Lords, so
WP:NPOL is not met either. I wonder if
WP:SALT is worth considering here.On top of the source assessment of the previous AfD which closed as delete, I am adding my personal source assessment for the new sources below.
Reason: Fails
WP:BIO and
WP:ANYBIO due to a lack of in-depth secondary coverage from reliable sources. Marquesses are not inherently notable, and this particular one never sat in the House of Lords, so
WP:NPOL doesn't apply here either.My personal source assessment follows:
Reason: This article was recreated but still doesn't meet
WP:BIO due to a lack of significant coverage from multiple, reliable secondary sources. The subject doesn't get a pass at
WP:NPOL due to never sitting in the House of Lords.The only piece of significant coverage for this individual comes from a local newspaper. A source assessment follows. See also the previous AfD for a review of other sources.
Reason: Scottish landowner and nobleman who fails
WP:GNG, with no claim to fame. The sources which cover the 22nd earl are either not
secondary, not
independent, not
reliable, and/or fail to provide
significant coverage. This earl also never sat in the House of Lords due to inheriting his title post-1999.Possible redirect target:
Earl of Morton.
Reason: Nobleman of the peerage of Ireland with no significant coverage. Fails
WP:GNG and
WP:NOTGENEALOGY. Earls are not inherently notable. Possible redirect target:
Earl of Cavan.
Reason: Nobleman from Northern Ireland, fails
WP:BIO/
WP:GNG due to a lack of secondary reliable sources providing
significant coverage of the subject. BEFORE turned up only passing mentions, like
here,
or there, but nothing arising to SIGCOV levels. The title of
Earl Belmore may be notable, but the 8th Earl isn't.
Reason: Nobleman from the peerage of Ireland, but without enough
SIGCOV to justify a standalone article: fails
WP:BIO /
WP:GNG. BEFORE didn't turn up more sources than what is in the article, see the source assessment below.Being a Deputy Lieutenant (DL) isn't particularly useful to assert notability either, since they are subordinates to the ceremonial county's
Lord-Lieutenant, "an honorary titular position usually awarded to a retired notable person in the county". In past AFDs, several biographies carrying the honorary title of DL resulted in deletion (see, for example,
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sir James Stronge, 2nd Baronet,
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Birdwood,
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Commander Herbert Roff Newton). If it were newsworthy, one would expect some sort of coverage related to this, but it doesn't seem appear to exist in this specific case.
Reason: Fails
WP:BIO /
WP:GNG. BEFORE turned up no other suitable sources that would help meet the general notability guideline. Burke's Peerage is a tertiary source that provides no SIGCOV besides routine information (DOB, parents and children), and Peerage News is a
self-published source. Ultimately,
Wikipedia articles are not genealogical entries.
Reason: Fails
WP:BIO: I couldn't find any significant coverage in reliable sources (or anywhere else, really). Never sat in the House of Lords, so
WP:NPOL isn't met; and being a Deputy Lieutenant, a ceremonial title, is insufficient, since it has been found several times at AFD to not be enough to satisfy our notability guidelines. The two offline sources in the article are not independent from the subject, and are not about the subject.
Reason: Fails
WP:BIO: insufficient coverage in reliable sources
WP:NOTGENEALOGY. Had an unsuccessful run at a by-elections to the House of Lords whose only coverage were two sentences beyond his non-independent candidate statement.
[4]. Redirect possibility:
Lord Napier.
Reason: This nobleman fails
WP:BIO, due to no significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. BEFORE did not turn up anything satisfying the GNG criteria. Gets passing mentions in the tertiary sources Debrett's and Burke's, but then again,
WP:NOTGENEALOGY.
Reason: This nobleman from the peerage of Ireland, who is also a businessman, has no particular claim to notability other than the title. Fails
WP:BASIC. BEFORE did not turn up anything other than passing mentions due to being related to
Diana Spencer, and a Tatler interview, which is not independent from the subject.
Reason: Recreated after deletion, this nobleman's article still fails
WP:BASIC,
WP:ANYBIO, and
WP:NOTGENEALOGY. The new sources added are not independent (COSCA) or provide significant coverage of the subject (Burke's Peerage and the 3 obituaries of his brother). See also the previous deletion discussion for an assessment of the existing sources.
Reason: Nobles aren't inherently notable: this one fails
WP:BIO due to a lack of
significant coverage. Burke's, Debrett's and other genealogical entries only show mentions with no in-depth coverage and are tertiary sources, and therefore cannot count towards
WP:GNG, and the Telegraph article has no mention of the 18th Earl.
Reason: Another embassy article that fails
WP:GNG. There's really not much about this embassy that wouldn't fit under
Australia–Azerbaijan relations: the only coverage I could find was this
non-independent press release regarding the creation of the embassy;
this small clash between Azeris and Armenians outside of the embassy; and the fact that the embassy staff
imported over 40,000 cigarettes and lots of booze, possibly to sell it to the black market. All in all, there's nothing really noteworthy *about the embassy* that makes me thing we should be keeping this article, and all the material I dug up could end up at
Australia–Azerbaijan relations. I think a redirect here would be a good fit.
Reason: Fails
WP:NSINGLE, only trivial coverage for this particular song, in The Fader article and other reviews I managed to find online. The album is likely notable though, so that's a potential redirect target.
Reason: Unnotable British nobleman, fails
WP:BIO due to a lack of significant coverage in independent, reliable, secondary sources. Doesn't meet
WP:NPOL either, since he never sat in the House of Lords due to inheriting his titles in 2012, way after the
House of Lords Act 1999. The 2014 AfD discussion was a
WP:ITSNOTABLE fest. Source assessment follows.
Reason: PROD was removed without a rationale. Unnotable British nobleman, fails
WP:BIO due to a lack of significant coverage in independent, reliable, secondary sources. Doesn't meet
WP:NPOL either, since he never sat in the House of Lords due to inheriting his titles in 2007, way after the
House of Lords Act 1999. Keeping this article for genealogy purposes got against our policy that
Wikipedia is not a genealogy website. Source assessment follows:
Reason: Non-notable nobleman from Scotland. Fails
WP:BIO, and in its current state goes against
WP:NOTGENEALOGY. This peer inherited his titles in 2015 and therefore never sat in the House of Lords, so
WP:NPOL can't be satisfied. Outside of Burke's Peerage, which is only reliable for genealogy per
WP:RSP, the remaining sources don't provide secondary, independent, reliable, and/or significant coverage.Source assessment follows:
Reason: 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:
Reason: Nobleman with no inherent notability, fails
WP:BIO. Never sat in the House of Lords (he inherited the title in 2000, one year after the
House of Lords Act 1999) so can't qualify for
WP:NPOL either. The two peerage websites in the article are deprecated per
WP:RSP, and Google News only returns a
passing mention for 1998, the year before his father lost his seat in the House of Lords. Previous AfD ended as no consensus in 2014.
Reason: It's been a while since the 2014 no consensus discussion. This nobleman fails our
notability guideline for biographies, and violates
WP:GENEALOGY in its current state, since 95% of the article is about the subject's family. The subject inherited the title in 2000, and therefore never sat in the House of Lords. The sources are deprecated or do not provide significant coverage, except one 1997 article which in my opinion helps meet
WP:GNG. However, the coverage is only about one event (
WP:BLP1E) and that it's not
WP:SUSTAINED. Source assessment follows.
Reason: Fairly
run-of-the-mill businessperson who is also a nobleman, but who never sat in the House of Lords because they inherited their title after the
House of Lords Act 1999. The sources on this person do not help confirm that the person is notable; only genealogy websites pop up, and the rest is not significant coverage, reliable, or independent from the subject.Source assessment follows:
Reason: British noblesman who fails
WP:BIO, in particular
WP:BASIC. Never sat in the House of Lords so cannot qualify for
WP:NPOL either. The London Gazette and Sydney Morning Herald sources are primary and do not provide significant coverage; and Debrett's only covers the subject's genealogy, which is insufficient to establish notability. BEFORE didn't turn up any reliable sources, with the exception of a
passing mention regarding his family's estate. Potential redirect target at
Marquess of Sligo.
Reason: Nobleman from Britain without a notability claim, fails
WP:BIO. Nobles are not inherently notable, and this one does not qualify for
WP:NPOL as he has never sat in the House of Lords. The sources found during my BEFORE were insufficient to establish notability: theeperage.com is unreliable per [[[WP:RSP]]; the Daily Mail was deprecated; the Telegraph
[1] and Wiltshire Live
[2] only give passing mentions. Possible redirect target:
Earl of Suffolk.
Reason: Fails
WP:BIO due to a lack of in-depth, secondary, independent, reliable coverage. The subject is a British nobleman who does not qualify for
WP:NPOL due to inheriting his current title in 2013. The sources in the article are a passing mention (obituary), a self-published peerage website, and a BEFORE only turned up a Spectator article
[3] which mentions him in one paragraph, which is insufficient given that
WP:SPECTATOR pieces are treated as opinion pieces. Possible redirect target:
Earl of Dudley.
Reason: Zero coverage, fails
WP:BIO. British nobles aren't inherently notable, and BEFORE didn't turn up any mention of the John Tottenham who succeeded his father in 2006 in reliable sources. Debrett's as the only source is problematic, since it only namechecks the subject's ancestry. The subject also never sat in the House of Lords, so they cannot qualify for
WP:NPOL either. Possible redirect target:
Marquess of Ely.
Reason: Irish peer, fails
WP:BASIC due to a lack of secondary, independent, reliable sources covering the subject in depth. Earned the title of marquess in 2005 and therefore cannot qualify for
WP:NPOL due to the
House of Lords Act 1999, which deprived them of a seat in the House of Lords.Source assessment follows:
Reason: This marquess fails
WP:BASIC, having earned no multiple, secondary, reliable, in-depth coverage. He never got to sit in the House of Lords and therefore cannot qualify for
WP:NPOL. While there is some passing coverage of the marquess in a handful of sources, he is never the subject of the article, and the amount of words dedicated to him in reliable sources never climb above 10% of the article's total. Arguably, an article about his mansion could be written, but at present the notability of the marquess is in my view not established. Possible redirect target:
Marquess Townshend.My (long) source assessment follows.
Reason: Seemingly non-notable Belgian boxer. Fails
WP:BASIC and
WP:NOLYMPICS. Competed at the 1920 Olympics but didn't make it past the round of 16, per
Belgium at the 1920 Summer Olympics. An extensive Google search result and Google Scholar search produced no results outside of wiki mirrors. If anybody else finds time, I believe a lot of athlete articles linked to
Belgium at the 1920 Summer Olympics need a notability check.
Reason: Fails
WP:GNG. Coverage is either not significant, not independent, not secondary, or not from reliable sources. The only claim to fame is being the tallest building in
Santa Clarita, California (pop. 200,000). WP:BEFORE only reveals spotty coverage from Santa Clarita Valley's local newspaper (The Signal), and coverage is
WP:MILL puff pieces which conveniently include the phone number of the hotel at the bottom:
they opened a bar!
new boss! etc. Not quite the fact-checking RS we would expect to have covered a notable location.
Reason: Fails
WP:RNEUTRAL. In 2022,
Trannyis an offensive and derogatory slur for a transgender individual. This redirect is from 2007, and it sits at the time of writing at 0 views in the past 30 days.
Reason: British nobleman, fails
WP:BIO: I found very little coverage in reliable sources for "Nicholas Hill", "Marquess of Downshire", and "Nick Downshire", and the little I found was passing mentions. British nobles aren't inherently notable. He also never sat in the House of Lords, so he cannot qualify for
WP:NPOL either.My source assessment follows:
Reason: This article was recreated in May 2023, but it still fails
WP:BASIC and
WP:ANYBIO. British peers are not inherently notable. Neville was also never elected to the House of Lords, so
WP:NPOL is not met either. I wonder if
WP:SALT is worth considering here.On top of the source assessment of the previous AfD which closed as delete, I am adding my personal source assessment for the new sources below.
Reason: Fails
WP:BIO and
WP:ANYBIO due to a lack of in-depth secondary coverage from reliable sources. Marquesses are not inherently notable, and this particular one never sat in the House of Lords, so
WP:NPOL doesn't apply here either.My personal source assessment follows:
Reason: This article was recreated but still doesn't meet
WP:BIO due to a lack of significant coverage from multiple, reliable secondary sources. The subject doesn't get a pass at
WP:NPOL due to never sitting in the House of Lords.The only piece of significant coverage for this individual comes from a local newspaper. A source assessment follows. See also the previous AfD for a review of other sources.
Reason: Scottish landowner and nobleman who fails
WP:GNG, with no claim to fame. The sources which cover the 22nd earl are either not
secondary, not
independent, not
reliable, and/or fail to provide
significant coverage. This earl also never sat in the House of Lords due to inheriting his title post-1999.Possible redirect target:
Earl of Morton.
Reason: Nobleman of the peerage of Ireland with no significant coverage. Fails
WP:GNG and
WP:NOTGENEALOGY. Earls are not inherently notable. Possible redirect target:
Earl of Cavan.
Reason: Nobleman from Northern Ireland, fails
WP:BIO/
WP:GNG due to a lack of secondary reliable sources providing
significant coverage of the subject. BEFORE turned up only passing mentions, like
here,
or there, but nothing arising to SIGCOV levels. The title of
Earl Belmore may be notable, but the 8th Earl isn't.
Reason: Nobleman from the peerage of Ireland, but without enough
SIGCOV to justify a standalone article: fails
WP:BIO /
WP:GNG. BEFORE didn't turn up more sources than what is in the article, see the source assessment below.Being a Deputy Lieutenant (DL) isn't particularly useful to assert notability either, since they are subordinates to the ceremonial county's
Lord-Lieutenant, "an honorary titular position usually awarded to a retired notable person in the county". In past AFDs, several biographies carrying the honorary title of DL resulted in deletion (see, for example,
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sir James Stronge, 2nd Baronet,
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Birdwood,
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Commander Herbert Roff Newton). If it were newsworthy, one would expect some sort of coverage related to this, but it doesn't seem appear to exist in this specific case.
Reason: Fails
WP:BIO /
WP:GNG. BEFORE turned up no other suitable sources that would help meet the general notability guideline. Burke's Peerage is a tertiary source that provides no SIGCOV besides routine information (DOB, parents and children), and Peerage News is a
self-published source. Ultimately,
Wikipedia articles are not genealogical entries.
Reason: Fails
WP:BIO: I couldn't find any significant coverage in reliable sources (or anywhere else, really). Never sat in the House of Lords, so
WP:NPOL isn't met; and being a Deputy Lieutenant, a ceremonial title, is insufficient, since it has been found several times at AFD to not be enough to satisfy our notability guidelines. The two offline sources in the article are not independent from the subject, and are not about the subject.
Reason: Fails
WP:BIO: insufficient coverage in reliable sources
WP:NOTGENEALOGY. Had an unsuccessful run at a by-elections to the House of Lords whose only coverage were two sentences beyond his non-independent candidate statement.
[4]. Redirect possibility:
Lord Napier.
Reason: This nobleman fails
WP:BIO, due to no significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. BEFORE did not turn up anything satisfying the GNG criteria. Gets passing mentions in the tertiary sources Debrett's and Burke's, but then again,
WP:NOTGENEALOGY.
Reason: This nobleman from the peerage of Ireland, who is also a businessman, has no particular claim to notability other than the title. Fails
WP:BASIC. BEFORE did not turn up anything other than passing mentions due to being related to
Diana Spencer, and a Tatler interview, which is not independent from the subject.
Reason: Recreated after deletion, this nobleman's article still fails
WP:BASIC,
WP:ANYBIO, and
WP:NOTGENEALOGY. The new sources added are not independent (COSCA) or provide significant coverage of the subject (Burke's Peerage and the 3 obituaries of his brother). See also the previous deletion discussion for an assessment of the existing sources.
Reason: Nobles aren't inherently notable: this one fails
WP:BIO due to a lack of
significant coverage. Burke's, Debrett's and other genealogical entries only show mentions with no in-depth coverage and are tertiary sources, and therefore cannot count towards
WP:GNG, and the Telegraph article has no mention of the 18th Earl.
Reason: Another embassy article that fails
WP:GNG. There's really not much about this embassy that wouldn't fit under
Australia–Azerbaijan relations: the only coverage I could find was this
non-independent press release regarding the creation of the embassy;
this small clash between Azeris and Armenians outside of the embassy; and the fact that the embassy staff
imported over 40,000 cigarettes and lots of booze, possibly to sell it to the black market. All in all, there's nothing really noteworthy *about the embassy* that makes me thing we should be keeping this article, and all the material I dug up could end up at
Australia–Azerbaijan relations. I think a redirect here would be a good fit.
Reason: Fails
WP:NSINGLE, only trivial coverage for this particular song, in The Fader article and other reviews I managed to find online. The album is likely notable though, so that's a potential redirect target.