Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Bowes-Lyon

:{{la|David Bowes-Lyon}} – (View AfDView log{{•}} {{plainlink|1=http://toolserver.org/~betacommand/cgi-bin/afdparser?afd={{urlencode:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Bowes-Lyon}}|2=AfD statistics}})

:({{findsources|David Bowes-Lyon}})

An article about an individual who was related to notable people but who was not notable in his own right Crusoe8181 (talk) 09:21, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

• Keep. Members of the peerage (by birth) are generally notable. He will have an entry in Burke's and Debrett's. He was also president of the Royal Horticultural Society for which he received further significant coverage. See [http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=4fZIAAAAYAAJ&q=%22David+Bowes-Lyon%22&dq=%22David+Bowes-Lyon%22&lr=&client=firefox-a&cd=13 this] and [http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=CMDNAAAAMAAJ&q=%22David+Bowes-Lyon%22&dq=%22David+Bowes-Lyon%22&lr=&client=firefox-a&cd=28 this]. --Michig (talk) 09:33, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
• Comment. Does an entry in Burke's and Debrett's satisfy WP:NOTABILITY? Do we have :Category:Presidents of the Royal Horticultural Society (there are articles on a couple; no mention, however, in the subject's article of any association with the Society)? Which countries or their constituent parts are eligible to have their peerage (by birth) considered notable? Tonga?, Patiala?, Nabha (Gurudutta, Sukh Chain, Surat Singh, Hamir Singh (1755-1783 ), Kapur Singh, Raja Jaswant Singh (1783-1840), Maharaja Devendra Singh, Ranjit Singh, Maharaja Bharpur Singh, Maharaja Bhagwan Singh, Hira Singh, Maharaja Ripudman Singh, Maharaja-Tika Pratap Singh (1923-1995) and all their issue, and the spouses of all their issue, and the antecedents of their spouses)?, Bahawalpur?, Swaziland (all the King's progeny and their consorts and their cousins)? (Crusoe8181 (talk) 10:58, 18 April 2010 (UTC)).

:Members of the British peerage are generally considered notable by past experience here. The existence or otherwise of a category has no relevance. Other countries are also not relevant to this discussion. --Michig (talk) 11:54, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

• Keep (weak). The man is not, himself, a peer. He is not a baron or higher. I doubt that we should say anyone mentioned in Burke's or Debrett's counts, per se. The honorary offices he held don't SEEM to require separate articles for each holder - the existing lists should do. Now, OTOH, being president of the Royal Horticultural Society may well qualify him. David V Houston (talk) 12:16, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
• Comment We have specific notability guidelines for Athletes, e.g., and for Pornstars, for crying out loud. I would propose one for nobility - e.g. any peer (baron or higher), plus any reigning monarch or child thereof (but probably not grandchildren). Things would get tricky outside Europe - it's pretty well recognized what 'monarchs' are but 'major nobility' doesn't map well to mediaeval Europe. Is it worth doing, and if so, how would one go about doing it? David V Houston (talk) 12:22, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

:We have one already and, according to what it says, he is automatically notable. The British are special. :P Silverseren^C 17:57, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Born, may have made himself useful in his lifetime (though there is nothing in the article to suggest so), died. Applies (or will do so) to a lot of us, even if we are unlikely to be discovered dead by a member of the RF. He is notable, as we are not, by dint of a few notable rellos (Crusoe8181 (talk) 12:36, 18 April 2010 (UTC)).

:(ec)See Wikipedia:Notability (royalty) which appears to reflect how these discussions have gone in the past, but failed to achieve consensus to become an official notability guideline. Minor members of the peerage may have a less clear claim to notability, but Bowes-Lyon was a knight, worked at the Ministry of Economic Warfare as Chief Press Secretary during WWII,[http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=2507&dat=19400816&id=zBk1AAAAIBAJ&sjid=QaYLAAAAIBAJ&pg=3375,3514559] and later served as the Lord Lieutenant of Hertfordshire. I don't see how he can be considered "non-notable".--Michig (talk) 12:45, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

• Merge The article in question should perhaps be merged with other articles of this topic into a new article called Spawn Of Claude Bowes-Lyon, 14th Earl of Strathmore and KinghorneMatt-tastic (talk) 12:48, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

:Nice one. *laughs* Silverseren^C 18:11, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

• Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Silverseren^C 18:11, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

• Comment I have tagged this article for rescue. Silverseren^C 18:11, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
• Keep I have added a number of sources. Have any of you looked at a [http://books.google.com/books?q=%22David+Bowes-Lyon%22+-inpublisher:icon&lr=&as_brr=0&sa=N&start=0 Google Books search]? Six hundred and forty-freaking-seven results! I mean, seriously. And, besides the fact that British peerage is almost always automatically notable, I have added some of the better Google Books results to the article, which should rather easily establish WP:BIO notability as well. Silverseren^C 18:11, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
• Comment But of the 647, how many do much more than mention him? Some, I'm sure, but raw volume of passing mentions doesn't help, does it? And, no, I don't believe that "British peerage is almost always automatically notable" - at least not 6th sons of peers. (of course, the fact that he was the Queen's brother may be more important that that he was the 6th son of an earl). David V Houston (talk) 21:14, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

:Yeah, i'm pretty sure being brother to the Queen is a much more important stand for notability, especially since it is a direct one-off relation. And I didn't look all that hard into the list of books when I was referencing it, so i'm sure there are even more books with a lot of information, but [http://books.google.com/books?id=xuAgAAAAMAAJ&q=%22David+Bowes-Lyon%22+-inpublisher:icon&dq=%22David+Bowes-Lyon%22+-inpublisher:icon&lr=&as_brr=0&cd=12 "Royal feud: the Queen Mother and the Duchess of Windsor"] and [http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=4fZIAAAAYAAJ&q=%22David+Bowes-Lyon%22&dq=%22David+Bowes-Lyon%22&lr=&client=firefox-a&cd=13 "Gardeners chronicle & new horticulturist"] contain a good amount of information about him (albeit you probably need a magnifying glass to see it. :P) Silverseren^C 21:42, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

• Keep Mentioned sufficiently in books. Dream Focus 23:56, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
• Keep (a) per Wikipedia:Notability (royalty), which has had some support here, as brother of the Queen Mum, and (b) at least of of those books are probably good sources to show he is notable in his own right. Bearian (talk) 22:19, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
• Keep Sources found by Silver seren do appear sufficient to pass WP:GNG. VernoWhitney (talk) 20:06, 22 April 2010 (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.