Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arthur Chatto (2nd nomination)

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 Merge and redirect with almost unanimous support. The lone dissenting argument was based on notability; however no content is to be deleted: As other editors have pointed out, the contents have been merged already. Nothing is lost by the decision to redirect. (Non-admin) SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Arthur Chatto

Arthur Chatto (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Procedural nomination to resolve conflict. Previous consensus was "keep", but notability is in question. We could move to Lady Sarah Chatto#Marriage and issue, but from me there is no vote. StAnselm (talk) 07:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect with parents. However, ensure that place of birth is kept and not lost. Agree that this should have been sent to AfD, rather than Charles deciding on his own to redirect.--UpDown (talk) 10:17, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect (merge is already done). Charles 11:45, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect He does not meet any of the WP:PEOPLE basic criteria, I cannot find any news coverage of him.  Atyndall93 | talk  06:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 22:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Notable for his place in the succession to the throne. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 17:22, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

• See Line of succession to the British throne. He's already there. Nothing else makes him notable. Charles 17:46, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

• My vote is still KEEP, for the reason I gave above. Relatives of the royal family that high up in the succession probably should have their own separate short articles just because of their notability as royals. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 18:02, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

• "Probably"? The Chattos are not royal. Charles 18:29, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

In line for the succession to the throne, however, and further up in the succession than people such as Lady Marina-Charlotte Windsor, whose article was not deleted. Again, my vote is KEEP. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 18:45, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect per nom. et al. ^† DBD 08:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
• Merge as above. Not really notable for anything other than the family he is in, which is not customarily taken as notable. 18th in line to the throne is a bit too distant I think to make him automatically qualify for an article. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:02, 29 April 2008 (UTC).
• Merge and redirect - A kid with no real notability. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:25, 29 April 2008 (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.