Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles James, 6th Baron Northbourne

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 Baron Northbourne. Any issues with the target article are better discussed on that article's talk page. (non-admin closure) Actualcpscm^{scrutinize, talk} 15:27, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Charles James, 6th Baron Northbourne

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Fails WP:BIO: I couldn't find any significant coverage in reliable sources (or anywhere else, really). Never sat in the House of Lords, so WP:NPOL isn't met; and being a Deputy Lieutenant, a ceremonial title, is insufficient, since it has been found several times at AFD to not be enough to satisfy our notability guidelines. The two offline sources in the article are not independent from the subject, and are not about the subject. Pilaz (talk) 13:21, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility, United Kingdom, and England. Pilaz (talk) 13:21, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:24, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Redirection to Baron Northbourne seems to be a good WP:ATD. Curbon7 (talk) 00:46, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Baron Northbourne, per lack of sufficient sourcing.

JoelleJay (talk) 19:07, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Löschen I question the value of the Baron Northbourne page - it has only original sources - so I don't see any value in the redirect. Each of the Barons listed there is blue-linked, which tells me that all of those articles need to be checked. I suspect there are others that do not meet notability, and I'm not feeling too great about the BaronN page in general. Lamona (talk) 03:54, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
An otherwise notable article being poorly sourced is not a good argument against redirection to it. Also, most of the other barons are notable as MPs, though feel free to check the others. Curbon7 (talk) 04:21, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't just a matter of sourcing. The Baron Northbourne page is pure genealogy. It's not a person, it's a title, and although there are a few of the BaronN's for which there are third-party sources (see Walter James, 4th Baron Northbourne), the BaronN page itself is just genealogy. If anything, BaronN should be a disambiguation to the few BaronN's for whom there are sources. Lamona (talk) 15:52, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Baron Northbourne. Whether that article fulfills Wikipedia's notability requirements is a separate issue and for now the redirect is a sensible AtD. Rupples (talk) 01:23, 9 October 2023 (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.