Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Geoffrey Somerset, 6th Baron Raglan

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. slakr^\ talk / 06:02, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Geoffrey Somerset, 6th Baron Raglan

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

Hereditary Baron post House of Lords Act 1999 thus no longer possesses the automatic right to sit in the upper House of Lords. CV to date includes various positions held, including that of county councillor however I do not believe any of these positions confer notability. Also 6/7 references are chiefly concerned with the death of the subject’s father. Flaming Ferrari (talk) 13:47, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this is an encyclopaedia and people are coming here to read this article. As a member of the aristocracy the subject is notable. Jack1956 (talk) 21:26, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In addition to his title of Baron, this person has held many elected offices as well as corporate posts and had an interesting military career. It certainly seems to be premature to delete this article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:17, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. 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. It strikes me as important to let the relevant wikiproject(s) know about these sorts of deletion proposals.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:06, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, very likely to be notable per
WP:N. The page already has some reliable sources, but some of its information is not cited and I have added {{cn}} tags. Moonraker (talk) 18:41, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete definitely fails WP:GNG and WP:BLP. His military career is not relevant at all, while "being born" cannot mean notability. For the sake of completeness a row in a table is enough. --Vituzzu (talk) 23:05, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: whether or not one approves of the hereditary peerage, there are still plenty of people interested in the present holder of an historical title.45ossington (talk) 08:39, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument is invalid, we are not dealing with peerage but with almost empty useless pages. --Vituzzu (talk) 10:48, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- He seems to have had a long career in minor public offices. Who's Who says he was a wine shipper 1971-93, a business man. Previously he worked for engineering firms. If it were not for the peerage, I would say that he was clearly NN. Does the peerage make a difference? BUT Merge to Baron Raglan rather than delete. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:48, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think I'm coming down on the side of keeping articles on peers or their heirs, whether or not they sit in the House of Lords, as all their predecessors did (and therefore all meet
WP:POLITICIAN) and it would be slightly odd and not of value to the project to break the chain of Wikipedia articles. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:42, 18 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.