Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicholas Ashley-Cooper, 12th Earl of Shaftesbury

:{{la|Nicholas Ashley-Cooper, 12th Earl of Shaftesbury}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Nicholas_Ashley-Cooper,_12th_Earl_of_Shaftesbury Stats])

:({{Find sources|Nicholas Ashley-Cooper, 12th Earl of Shaftesbury}})

Hereditary Earl who inherited his title after the House of Lords Act 1999 and has been unsuccessful in subsequent attempted to become an elected peer. Appears to be a bit part businessman, musician, runner and philanthropist, but having read the entire article I struggle to see anything which marks this individual out as inherently notable. Also possibly self-written with similarities to Dinah Ashley-Cooper, Countess of Shaftesbury. Flaming Ferrari (talk) 15:09, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

• Keep, plainly notable. Peers are not inherently non-notable because they do not have a seat in the House of Lords. Like the rest of humanity, they need only meet the test of WP:N, which is not about being a deserving human being but about the availability of reliable sources. Moonraker (talk) 20:25, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
• Comment, NB the view 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) 08:04, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
• Delete definitely fails WP:GNG and WP:BLP. "Being born" cannot mean notability. For the sake of completeness a row in a table is enough. This page is full of trivia, gossip and other not notable stuffs which cannot be included on Wikipedia. --Vituzzu (talk) 23:38, 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)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

• Keep -- Notable for his efforts to restore the family mansion, and as owner of a great estate. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:20, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
• Keep per Moonraker and Peterkingiron. Earls are high up enough in the peerage as to be considerd automatically notable. His charitable work adds to his notability. Bearian (talk) 19:52, 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) 10:49, 18 March 2014 (UTC)