Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles Townshend, 8th Marquess Townshend

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. Mojo Hand (talk) 00:48, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Townshend, 8th Marquess Townshend

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

Non-notable hereditary Marquess who inherited his title after the House of Lords Act 1999 thus has never possessed the right to sit in the House of Lords. Flaming Ferrari (talk) 17:31, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, sufficiently sourced article via WP:N, WP:RS, WP:V. AfD nomination by a user who seems not to understand WP:GNG and other relevant guidelines.--ColonelHenry (talk) 21:14, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per ColonelHenry and per comment of Jimbo Wales at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Henry FitzRoy, 12th Duke of Grafton and elsewhere: "There is usefulness in having a compete set of entries on hereditary peers, even if some peers are less prominent or noteworthy than others, even when the article must of necessity remain something of a stub. Considering these articles in isolation, i.e. not noting that they are part of a wider series, is mistaken." Moonraker (talk) 06:59, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete definitely fails WP:GNG and WP:BLP. "Being born" cannot mean notability. For the sake of completeness a row in a table is enough. --Vituzzu (talk) 23:18, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: whether or not one approves of the hereditary peerage (and baronetage), there are still plenty of people interested in the present holder of an historical title.45ossington (talk) 08:21, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument is invalid, we are not dealing with peerage but with almost empty useless pages. --Vituzzu (talk) 10:52, 14 March 2014 (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.