Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Charteris, 13th Earl of Wemyss

:{{la|James Charteris, 13th Earl of Wemyss}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/James_Charteris,_13th_Earl_of_Wemyss Stats])

Hereditary Earl who inherited his title after the House of Lords Act 1999 thus has never possessed the right to sit in the House of Lords. Unlikely to meet notability criteria as an academic. Flaming Ferrari (talk) 15:19, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

• Keep, perfectly good reliable sources are already here, so notable per WP:N, although sources could be improved. Academic who taught Bill Clinton at Oxford. NB also the comment of Jimbo Wales at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexander Gordon, 7th Marquess of Aberdeen and Temair and elsewhere: "There is usefulness in having a compete set of entries on hereditary peers, even if some peers are less prominent or noteworthy than others, even when the article must of necessity remain something of a stub. Considering these articles in isolation, i.e. not noting that they are part of a wider series, is mistaken." Moonraker (talk) 07:54, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

:({{Find sources|James Charteris, 13th Earl of Wemyss}})

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

• Obvious Keep. Member of British peerage. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:02, 9 March 2014 (UTC).
• Delete definitely fails WP:GNG and WP:BLP. Seriously, reading the page it seems undergoing an operation of trepanation is the most relevant activity. "Being born" cannot mean notability. For the sake of completeness a row in a table is enough. --Vituzzu (talk) 23:40, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
• Keep: whether or not one approves of the hereditary peerage (and baronetage), there are still plenty of people interested in the present holder of an historical title.45ossington (talk) 08:31, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
• :Your argument is invalid, we are not dealing with peerage but with almost empty useless pages. --Vituzzu (talk) 10:55, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
• Keep - sufficiently notable to meet WP:N. I agree with the comment about having a complete series of hereditary peer articles. SagaciousPhil - Chat 13:12, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
• Keep per Moonraker. This earl is fairly high up in the peerage, and a very old title at that. Bearian (talk) 19:38, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
• Comment. I hope we won't have any more of these pointless nominations. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:45, 17 March 2014 (UTC).
• Keep. I think I'm coming down on the side of keeping articles on peers or their heirs, whether or not they sit in the House of Lords, as all their predecessors did (and therefore all meet WP:POLITICIAN) and it would be slightly odd and not of value to the project to break the chain of Wikipedia articles. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:51, 18 March 2014 (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.