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 redirect to Earl of Caledon. The person is a dead British nobleman who's covered in Who's Who, but apparently not (substantially) in other sources. As to his notability, opinions are divided, which means that strength of argument is the deciding factor.

The "keep" argument is that nobles of this rank are inherently notable, and that it is useful to cover all nobles of this rank. But this argument has no basis in policies or inclusion guidelines, which do not address nobility. WP:MONARCH, which summarizes deletion outcomes, instead suggests that the inclusion of nobles is normally discussed on a case-by-case basis based on WP:GNG. The "keep" argument is therefore rather weak.

The "delete" argument is, first, lack of notability-establishing coverage. In this regard, there is a dispute (which I cannot decide here) about the reliability of Who's Who. But even if we assume it to be a reliable source providing substantial coverage (which was not discussed here), it would be only one source, not the multiple ones required by GNG, and nobody argues that there are other relevant sources. The GNG argument for deletion is therefore rather strong.

Also strong is the other argument for deletion, WP:NOTGENEALOGY. That policy says that articles should not be "genealogical entries. Family histories should be presented only where appropriate to support the reader's understanding of a notable topic." But the contents of the article are almost entirely genealogical (married, had children, etc.) Nobody in this AfD argues that there are things of substance to be written about this man that are not genealogical.

Based on the strength of the arguments presented, we therefore have rough consensus for not keeping the article. Redirection to the title, where there is a list of titleholders, is an appropriate alternative to deletion. Content can be merged from history as desired and to the extent supported by editorial consensus. Sandstein 08:53, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Denis Alexander, 6th Earl of Caledon[edit]

Denis Alexander, 6th Earl of Caledon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

The subject of this article does not conform to Wikipedia notability standards. The article simply gives his name and lists his relatives, many of whom appear un-notable too. Emmentalist (talk) 07:44, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:25, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:25, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:25, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Always a bit unsure about these peerage articles. Basically it's a rich guy with a title they inherit, nothing notable beyond that. They are either all eligible as a class of people, or aren't. This fellow seems non-notable, the article just confirms he existed. Oaktree b (talk) 02:17, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Yeah, basically. They are either all eligible as a class of people, or aren't. In that case per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Geoffrey Somerset, 6th Baron Raglan: 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. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:31, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; merge content with Earl of Caledon where Denis Alexander is already mentioned. There exists a Wikipedia page for each title; this is consistent with the principle that titles are a category or class which is of itself notable. It is not consistent or logical to have a separate Wikipedia article about an individual who has a title and is otherwise not notable since the title, and the reference to each person who has held it, is already the subject of an extant article. Separate articles should only apply where the individual, such as the First Duke of Wellington, is notable for reasons other than the title. This principle should be applied in all other cases where the holder of a title is otherwise not notable. BrightonDave (talk) 13:19, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that most hereditary peers until 1999 qualified for articles per WP:POLITICIAN as members of the House of Lords. This doesn't apply to Caledon, however, as he was an Irish peer. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:29, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Agree with Hawkeye7. There's plenty of coverage of him, even if not especially comprehensive. Entry in Who's Who. Enough to meet WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:24, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:32, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:32, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete @Hawkeye7's point seems to have been fully addressed by @BrightonDave. Denis Alexander, The 6th Earl of Caledon, is included in the Earl of Caledon page. In addition, the argument that an individual is notable because they are in the UK's Who's Who is essentially circular because the Who's Who has an editorial policy of including all title holders. Wikipedia must set its own rules. I completely respect arguments to the contrary, and those who are taking the time to make them, but to me it seems perverse for each Earl mentioned at the Earl of Caledon page, and who can have as much biographical material there as anyone wishes consistent with Wikipedia policies, should also have a separate article regardless of whether or not they are notable (the Who's Who issue notwithstanding). I agree that if this is actioned it will require the articles of many unknown aristocrats (including, it seems, most of the Earls of Caledon) to have their second, or individual, articles merged with the article for the relevant title. The implications of our decision are therefore fairly considerable. I'm going to ask at TeaHouse if anyone there fancies chipping in. We seem quite evenly balanced at the moment, and in view of the consequences it might be good to have an admin give a point of view? Best regards to all, Emmentalist (talk) 19:25, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The author of the "!vote" immediately above is the nominator. -- Hoary (talk) 22:58, 19 January 2022 (UTC) Yes, that's quite right @hoary Perhaps I confused things there. Apols if so, and thanks. Emmentalist (talk) 08:53, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Not all the Earls of Caledon are lesser light; Du Pre Alexander, 2nd Earl of Caledon was an important figure, with a biography in the ODNB. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:59, 19 January 2022 (UTC) Thanks, @Hawkeye7, I agree that the 2nd Earl is notable in his own right and his own article is quite right on that basis.Emmentalist (talk) 14:20, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. He was an earl, so I imagine that he would have been eligible to participate in the House of Lords; but many Lords didn't and there's no hint in the article that he did. He would have had the right to wear unusual headgear. And he procreated. He was promoted to lieutenant colonel, but there's no indication of that there's anything notable about what he did on his way to this rank. So he seems utterly un-notable (in the normal sense of the word). The nomination: "The article simply gives his name and lists his relatives, all of whom appear un-notable too." As the article is ostensibly about him, I don't see why it would make any difference if his relatives were notable. Of course what matters is Wikipedia-notability; and plenty of non-notable people (reality TV show participants, etc) are Wikipedia-notable because there's so much talk about them in "reliable sources". But for this fellow, the references all seem very trivial. -- Hoary (talk) 22:58, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  As noted above, Earl of Caledon is in the Peerage of Ireland, which did not confer an automatic right to sit in the House of Lords. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:59, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Ah, sorry, I missed that. Written above together with it: "most hereditary peers until 1999 qualified for articles per WP:POLITICIAN as members of the House of Lords". In WP:POLITICIAN, I read that article-eligibility "also applies to people who have been elected to such offices but have not yet assumed them"; I'm not sure that this also applies to people eligible for political office but who rarely if ever made use of that eligibility. But this is beside the point here, as the man's peerage was Irish. -- Hoary (talk) 00:33, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Customarily for many years now we have included all British/Irish peers, and that weight of custom would probably need a properly advertised RfC to overturn it. The Who's Who entry appears sufficient for verification, I think the Gazette would cover his accession (not sure for Irish peers, tbh) and it would be extremely unlikely were his life not to be covered by local newspapers, at the very least. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:20, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Some dude who inherited land and a title, married a game show panelist, ostensibly did nothing notable in his role as an officer, and that's basically it. This article may as well belong in a genealogy database. The entry in Who Was Who should mean next to nothing; it's a publication that does so little research on its own tens of thousands of subjects that it compiles its entries by sending questionnaires to the people it writes about and letting them fill it out of their own accord with seemingly little or no fact-checking. While I don't have access to Montgomery-Massingberd & Skyes (1999), it's hard to imagine this subject received more than a couple-sentence blurb even in such a highly specific publication. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 04:27, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This is a super discussion and thanks so much to everyone who has participated so far. Perhaps a clarifying point here? It is agreed that the UK aristocracy is notable and that each title qualifies for a Wikipedia article, including biographical detail on each historical title holder. It's also easy to understand why many people could find such articles interesting and useful. The question at hand is whether those otherwise un-notable figures mentioned there should also have a second article dedicated to them. Again, it is easy to understand why, say, the First Duke of Wellington (i.e. the famous one) or perhaps, as mentioned by @espressoaddict the Second Earl of Caledon, might have such a huge biographical entry that it would distort the page for the title and a second article would be appropriate. But that would seem (imho) to rest on normal standards of notability other than simply being included in the article about the title.Emmentalist (talk) 07:46, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Or, failing that, merge and redirect to Earl of Caledon. (As noted, and while "peerage titles" are often considered notable, every single holder of such title is not automatically considered notable.) There is nothing to indicate that ANYBIO, SIGCOV, or related guidelines are met here. (As noted, other than being the holder of a title [and being listed in a "Whos Who" because of that], there is nothing else here [in the text or the refs] to establish independent notability.) Inheriting land, being in the military and having own families/chlidren? How does this confer notability? Guliolopez (talk) 12:49, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a regular Wikipedia editor but I do enjoy reading about history and nobility on Wikipedia and sometimes I post a comment if it might be useful. Can I suggest that a good way of seeing this subject is to look at the EarlofCaldon article and particularly at the 'lines of succession' section. There you will see that the 6th Earl (Denis Alexander) is listed. Below him is listed his uncle, Harold Alexander. There are big two differences, though, and they're both interesting and relevant here. First, Harold was not an heir (his brother, Denis' father, was the heir) and so would never normally have been an Earl (and presumably would not have a second page in normal circumstances). But second, Harold became a Field Marshal and Governor of Canada and actually an Earl in his own right. This seems to serve perfectly the point that some nobles' lives are honourable but not notable and so their Wikipedia entry seems best to stop there - I suggest Denis Alexander is such a case. Whereas some nobles' lives are indeed notable and should have a full Wikipedia page dedicated to them like any other highly notable person. Harold seems the perfect example of the latter. I hope this is helpful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C5:C12D:C200:CCE1:7C3A:3AD4:30B2 (talk) 13:57, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Aside from the Who's Who entry, the subject is also mentioned in this 1 book, where he is described as an "endearingly eccentric bachelor". Surely these sources together are enough to establish notability. Ficaia (talk) 03:38, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Would you be able to describe what else is said in the book for those who don't have access to it? That was a rhetorical question, by the way, because you seemed to misinterpret the Wikipedia excerpt you copied this information from; Alexander's uncle was described as an "endearingly eccentric bachelor". I'm not sure you even read the entire article before voting, given it's clearly stated that Alexander married three times and was married to Marie Allen from 1964 onward, i.e. he couldn't have been a "bachelor". Other editors and I have noted above that the Who's Who entry is almost certainly unreliable due to poor fact-checking and was almost certainly only created not because of anything notable the subject actually did but because of the title they inherited. Those two sources together definitely are not enough to establish notability unless the Great Houses source is quite extensive – say, spanning several pages at least. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 07:07, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails WP:BASIC, I don't accept that all nobility are automatically notable. Mztourist (talk) 04:31, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Hi, Wikipedians. I hope this is helpful to this excellent discussion. "Who's Who" has been cited by the minority so far who would prefer to Keep. This type of publication, including the UK version, is not agreed as a reliable source WP:RSN as they are self-reporting (i.e. the subject literally writes the article) and not fact checked. WP:GNG is unambiguous that the subject must not be the source of the information:

"A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" and "'Independent of the subject' excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it".

On a lighter note, @TheTechnician27 made me smile: Yes, it is always best to read the article and look at the points made in this discussion before deciding what should happen. That way, you will not describe someone as a confirmed bachelor when they were married with children. As a side note, the notion of the 'endearingly eccentric bachelor' in an old publication may very possibly be a less-than-subtle coded reference which Wikipedian's may wish to think about before citing? All the best to everyone participating, and thanks very much. Emmentalist (talk) 08:50, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep.Plenty of RS, Who's Who entry, and generally we cover this level of peerage. Also there are some Delete votes who infer by their comments, that they simply don't seem to like the concept of a peer!.. Voting against something because of your personal viewpoint of a concept is completely irrelevant.Deathlibrarian (talk) 09:53, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, @deathlibrarian. Thanks for your thoughts, but it is best to assume good faith and to be respectful of other editors/contributors. It's also advisable - said with genuine great respect - to read the other contributions before passing your own comments because otherwise you risk repeating the same points other have and missing all the arguments. For your information, it has been argued by many above, including the people you mention in the pejorative, that a number of policies imply (not infer) the requirement to delete/merge the Denis Alexander article. These include WP:Basic, WP:GNG, WP:Notability and that Who's Who is not agreed as a reliable source WP:RSN. There are a number of other policies which likely apply and in the end the closing administrator will give weight to all of these when adjudicating. Finally, the proposal is not to 'not cover' the peerage, but to delete the article while merging the relevant information at the Earl of Caledon article. All the best, Emmentalist (talk) 11:11, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Emmentalist for your measured and very polite response. I did in fact ignore the comments about Who's Who, because as far as I am concerned, it is RS. If you note the WP:RSN it doesn't disallow it, it says editors are divided on whether it is an RS. However, some editors here are saying it isn't, I would disagree. Our own Wikipedia entry clearly indicates that Who's Who is for notable people - "Inclusion in Who's Who, unlike many other similar publications, has never involved any payment by or to the subject, or even any obligation to buy a copy. Inclusion has always been by perceived prominence in public life or professional achievement"There is another different publication, called the "Maquis Who's Who". I believe that is not regarded as RS for good reasons, however it is completely separate publication.Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:36, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Per Guliolopez - Delete. Or, failing that, merge and redirect to Earl of Caledon. No RS, 'Who's Who' does not pass RS and is often merely a list of individuals. Unless this individual had a seat in the Lords then he fails N. --Donniediamond (talk) 14:30, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I will note a lot of people have been talking about Who's Who UK as a reliable source. If you check the actual RS noticeboard, list of sources, WP:RSN it does not rule out the use of UK Who's Who. The RS noticeboard discussions rule out another publication, "Maquis Who's Who" - a different US(?) publication which accepts payment for entries. There is a discussion here on the RS noticeboard about that publication which accepts payment for entry. UK and Australian "Who's Who" do not accept payments. The Wikipedia Entry for UK Who's Who indicates that the publication "lists people who influence British life, according to its editors". Certainly Australian Who's Who is well regarded in my country, only notable people are listed in it. People can submit/update their own details once they have gained an entry (and this is a valuable thing as it can assist with keeping information up to date), but you can't simply submit your own bio and you are automatically added, or pay for it to go in...the publication chooses who goes in. As he is listed in Who's Who, my keep vote remains. Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:23, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:RSP is simply "a non-exhaustive list of sources whose reliability and use on Wikipedia are frequently discussed". I'm aware that A&C Black's Who's Who and Marquis' are different entities. From the search results of the reliable sources noticeboard (where RSP sources its entries from), a couple of the first few results stand out. I won't ping these editors for fear of WP:CANVASSing and improperly influencing the discussion, but in one, an editor of around my experience calls "the existence of an entry in the well established British Who's Who a helpful but insufficient condition to establish notability". In another, an administrator does call WW "certainly a reliable source" but goes on to state: "it shouldn't be used as conclusive proof of notability." The most substantial discussion of "Debretts, Whos Who etc" I can find dates back to 2007, but I would keep in mind when reading it that editors were already calling into question the publications' independence and the amount of notabillity it conferred all the way back then, when notability standards were treated far more laxly. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 01:48, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• In regard to these comments, I would be concerned that they are influenced or referring to the dodgier (Maquis etc) Who's Who, particularly if they are challenging its independence. The Wikipedia entries for UK Who's Who substantiates it as a selective biographical work, and doesn't raise any issues about it's independence. Certainly, I would ask editors that have some confirmation of the illegitimacy of Australian and UK Who's Who that they should update the Wikipedia page for the publication, with the Reliable Source that confirms their concerns. Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:07, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• To clarify, both of these opinions are expressly referring to "Who's Who (UK)", which is listed in the header of the discussion I'm referencing. The third one, which I've since removed because it was potentially ambiguous, may have been referencing Who's Whos in general. That being said, the fact that Who's Whos are published based on autobiographical information sent in by the subjects means it's clearly not independent in the same way that interviews generally aren't considered independent. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 02:25, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that part of the logic of people providing their own bio entry information is that it allows for the entry person to keep it up to date, so that it is in fact accurate. I think they are checked to a degree (?).... but I'm certainly not aware of their being issues with the Who's Who entries being incorrect due to people submitting incorrect information. My point is, Who's Who in Australia and the UK is generally well regarded, and if people have some sort of reliable source that says otherwise (apart from their personal opinions), they should provide it so the publication wiki entry can be changed. Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:38, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• It would be fair to say, I think, that the status of the UK's Who's Who is ambiguous, eminently debatable and indeed debated across Wikipedia (including here). But let's not allow this discussion to be all about Who's Who. It seems clear that Who's Who entries are sometimes used as supplementary sources when there are other reasons for considering the subject of an article to be notable. As @TheTechnician27 quotes another editor, considering Who's Who entries helpful but not of themselves sufficient for notability seems the best policy. Denis Alexander has no other claim to notability. Emmentalist (talk) 08:05, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Emmentalist I think at this point, as we both have opposing views on the status of UK and Australian who's who, I think it just best that we agree to dissagree; I don't see that changing one way or the other. Thanks for the discussion. Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:30, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with Earl of Caledon, because honestly, he's already mentioned and frankly, Denis Alexander was a pretty unimportant guy with an inherited title, no money, who married a game show panelist (as stated above) and had no real historical role. Also, as stated before (but in a longer and angrier way) UK Who's Who really isn't a good source. And honestly, when was this last copyedited? Look at all of those typos, grammatical errors and sketchy relatives (trustworthy verification?). Vdbhi (talk) 7:05 22 January 2022 — Preceding undated comment added 00:09, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I proposed the AfD and make these closing comments. The discussion has been excellent (imho): Informed, measured and polite. It seems to have reached a natural conclusion 2 or 3 days ago after 4 or 5 days. Some contributors have argued to 'Keep' based mainly upon previous practice and a Who's Who reference. A little more (although it has been far from one-sided) have argued for 'Delete' or 'Merge (with main Earl of Caldon article) based mainly upon Wikipedia policies including WP:GNG and WP:Basic. It is now a matter for an adjudicating admin, who may decided that other policies are relevant before issuing a decision. It has been a pleasure taking part in such an interesting and thoughtful discussion, whatever the outcome, and I would like to thank all who have taken the time to chip in. I would also like to thank the adjudicating admin in advance for their time and effort [it is perhaps worth saying, as I'm not sure of the full procedure now, that I would be happy to help should the admin decide to merge, but I am not presupposing that outcome]. All the best Emmentalist (talk) 07:21, 25 January 2022 (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.