Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexander Lascelles

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 no consensus. W.marsh 02:31, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alexander Lascelles

Speedy Delete (CSD A7) -- I've AFD'd this as while i believe no claim to notability is established, other editors may disagree. This person is 41st in line for the throne, has done nothing notable. Being in line isnt really notable, when everyboody in the UK is in line. Matthew Fenton (Talk | Contribs) 18:53, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete all of these Lascelleses, none of them seem to have done anything notable. Being 40somethingth in line for the crown is a pretty weak claim to fame. Andrew Levine 20:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete everyboody per rationale for 28th in line to throne. I bet you love that typo being duplicated in every one of these ;) - Yomangani^talk 22:09, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as he is the future Earl of Harewood. Piccadilly 23:14, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  • • WP:NOT a crystal ball. If and when the subject becomes Earl of Harewood, iff being Earl of Harewood meets the WP:BIO guidelines, then the subject can be included as meeting our guidelines. Lots of ifs. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Most titled families include articles for the presumptive heir. Delete the rest. Note: nominator should review the criteria for speedy deletion. This doesn't qualify. Fan-1967 00:07, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment - It could do under A7 - it's such a hopeless fudge that just about any article could qualify depending on how strict the nominator is feeling. - Yomangani^talk 00:41, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

No, there's an assertion of notability. Just a question of degree. Can't really speedy those. Fan-1967 14:10, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Iff being 41rd in line to the throne is notable; the Royal family's website stops at number 39. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• delete or mergeto David, Viscount Lascelles not notable in own right Ohconfucius 03:42, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete in line with gnews/gbooks lack of hits and thus reliable sources; being umptieth in line for the throne is nothing. If (and I don't agree) being Earl of Harewood is notable, then the subject can have an article after he is Earl, not before. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:42, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Future peer, Comment Not everybody in the UK is in line to the throne, all the catholics to start with. Being 50th in line is notable enough for someone to notice. Catchpole 15:40, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep - The first 100 persons in line for the British throne all appear to have articles. Perhaps some of these should be merged with each other into family groups, but they do have some very slight notability, particularly since they are British subjects, whereas many of the earlier persons in line for the throne are not and might thus not be politically acceptable to inherit the crown. This applies to the succeeding Lascells entries too. Peterkingiron 16:00, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - If there was something notable him personally I'd say keep; however, there is no information in this article that is not contained in his father's article. Very pointless. --Matjlav^(talk) 00:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as per other nominations by the same user -- Roleplayer 02:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • This isn't a vote, please reference policies and guidelines. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment—As it stands now, the article is completely unsourced. I presume it is verifiable, but once thoroughly verified there should be no problem keeping it. Ardric47 20:15, 16 August 2006 (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.