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 Strathmore and Kinghorne. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 02:02, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Bowes-Lyon, 19th Earl of Strathmore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Nomination by Surtscina was screwing up, I hope I have solved this. PatGallacher (talk) 19:53, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I quote Surtscina's comments: I believe this article should be deleted because the topic has not attracted significant coverage in reliable sources (WP:SIGCOV), thus failing WP:GNG and WP:BASIC guidelines. Wikipedia should not have an article just because he is a great-great-nephew of the mother of the British queen (WP:INVALIDBIO). He is simply too obscure. PatGallacher (talk) 19:56, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 22:40, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 22:40, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 22:40, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne. The most in-depth source apparently is the Times piece on breaching COVID restrictions in June. Some other sources mention him in passing but don't say anything about him other than being the son of his father and/or owning a castle. Lacks WP:GNG (t · c) buidhe 09:53, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne. Notability is not inherited, have to say.   --Whiteguru (talk) 11:44, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as above. His father had enough sources to pass WP:GNG, in time he might too, but not yet. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:38, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect - while (even leaving aside the relationship to the Royal Family) the Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne is usually a significant individual. However I would agree that the current holder of the title has not so far had the level of coverage, or achieved the level of notability, that would normally be expected for someone who has their own Wikipedia article. What has pushed many peers in the past to notability was their membership of the House of Lords, but he is not a member. There is also precedent for current holders of UK and Scottish earldoms not have their own article - eg the current Earl of Galloway. I think however he is someone that a Wikipedia user might search for, so I would definitely support redirect rather than delete. I also think there is a reasonable possibility that in the future he might gain an increased level of notability (for example if he were to become an elected hereditary member of the House of Lords) so at some point it may be appropriate to recreate this as a separate article. Dunarc (talk) 21:01, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect -- He appears completely NN. Articles on peers should usually only exist if they are otherwise notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:09, 13 September 2020 (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.