Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Coke, 8th Earl of Leicester

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 keep. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:10, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Thomas Coke, 8th Earl of Leicester (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)

Fails WP:GNG. No claim to notability, and no significant coverage in independent sources. Wikipedia is not a genealogical database, sites like ThePeerage.com already exist for that purpose. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 07:05, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 07:53, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 07:54, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

• Keep per the reasons given in the previous AFD. If anything his case is stronger now that his father has died and he has taken over the substantive title. Iffy★Chat -- 08:18, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
• Keep. We have always considered all peers to be notable. Up until fairly recently they all qualified under WP:POLITICIAN as members of a national legislature and we should keep those who have never sat in the House of Lords for reasons of consistency if nothing else. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:06, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

• No, we specifically don't consider all peers to be notable. Wikipedia:WikiProject_Peerage_and_Baronetage#Notability. A number of article about peers and royalty have been deleted in the past. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 16:15, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

• AfDs on British peers (who are obviously the people I was referring to given the subject of this AfD) have always found the opposite. As I said, until the automatic right to sit in the Lords was removed they were all notable under WP:POLITICIAN anyway. It makes no sense (and is not of value to Wikipedia) to break the chain of articles because they no longer do sit in the Lords. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:25, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

• Delete - references are insufficient to support WP:NPOL notability. Peers are not inherently notable.--Rpclod (talk) 14:12, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
• Keep. Full bio and on the guardian. Should these titles be abolished, yes, but there is much about modern Britain I'd like to change... Szzuk (talk) 18:46, 3 February 2018 (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.