Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicholas Lawson (2nd nomination)

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 delete. 1ne 07:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nicholas Lawson

Nicholas Lawson (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This fellow, Nicholas Lawson, is completely non-notable. He has not done anything. He had a job working for the Royal Family, but hasn't seem to have distinguished himself in any way. I have requested input on notability for a month on the article and no one has responded. Article does not meet Wikipedia:Notability (people) standards. The previous article that was deleted under this name 14 April 2006, See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicholas Lawson was a different person. --Bejnar 07:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete He is a personal secretary for Princess Anne? That doesn't make him notable. TJ Spyke 08:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Private secretary to the Princess Royal is notable. -- Necrothesp 12:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: Can either of you back up your statement? Regardless of your answer, I don't see reason for deletion. Anyone looking for him could quite easily be redirected to the Princess Anne article where he could be mentioned if it is decided he shouldn't have his own article. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:41, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. How can one back up a statement of notability? Notability can't be proved. He is verifiable and will be mentioned in numerous articles as being private secretary to a senior member of the Royal Family. Beyond that, backing up is impossible. It has to be a matter of opinion. -- Necrothesp 14:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Weak delete, articles about a evidently living person with assertions lacking sources and references are not acceptable by Wiki standards. If Sources and references are added by end of this AfD change to keep Alf photoman 16:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• keep Yes it has no be sourced, but , given the topic, it obviously can. To see why the role is N, read the UK section of article on aide-de-camp. DGG 01:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment I read that and I still see no reason for notability for Nicholas Lawson. Job title alone might qualify one for a list, but not an article. What did he do that was notable? --Bejnar 14:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete -- per nomination. Nothing special or notable here. Turgidson 02:54, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete doesn't meet WP:N or WP:BIO there are no sources and while trivial mentions would probably be easy to find, one with him as the primary subject (as called for by the guidelines) have not been shown to exist and I have no reason to believe they do. A google search, for instance, shows nothing about him besides wikipedia mirrors.[1] Eluchil404 23:48, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unless some evidence of notability is provided. A private secretary does not inherit that person's notability, regardless of who you are private secretary for. Nuttah68 17:55, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

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.