Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lord Frederick Wellesley

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. Singularity 08:26, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lord Frederick Wellesley

Lord Frederick Wellesley (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Completing unfinished nom for Cmprince (talk · contribs), apparently Twinkle messed up. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:35, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Per WP:BIO, relatives of notable people are not of themselves notable. Cmprince (talk) 00:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete clearly nn. JJL (talk) 01:21, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. He is not notable now, but may well be eventually through wealth and political involvement. --Eastmain (talk) 03:17, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, the crystal ball is in the shop waiting for repairs. Delete on that basis, also fails WP:V, WP:BIO.  RGTraynor  15:23, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

• Weak delete He's third in line to the title of Duke of Wellington and about 400th in the line of succession to the British throne. I'd say it's a keeper if he had inherited the Dukedom, but until then... --Canley (talk) 03:25, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete As someone whose general area is royalty and nobility, I don't see the need to create an article for every individual in the peerage, which seems to be quite a trend. Though life peers are generally notable, younger children of hereditary peers rarely are. PeterSymonds | talk 05:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. He's in the interesting situation of being in line to a dukedom through his father, and in line to the throne through his mother, but interesting does not mean notable. StAnselm (talk) 12:18, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. Not likely to inherit either title. If he becomes the heir apparent due to the demise of his brother, perhaps. --Dhartung | Talk 17:39, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 14:43, 9 April 2008 (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.