Maurice FitzGerald, 9th Duke of Leinster : An internet search doesn't reveal much coverage of the person.  2) Most of the references used in this article refer to other people (e.g car crash obituary) not the actual man, Maurice Fittzgerald.  3) The person has made no notable contribution to any field.  It is said he is a landscape designer, but no mention is made of awards or achievements he made in that field.  4) The article reads like a personal family history (children, who married who etc), not something that is notable or important for public knowledge Alternatively to deletion, this page could be merged to the Duke of Leinster page, where the main coverage (a so-called title dispute) is already listed and mentions this man's name: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke_of_Leinster#Title_dispute Wikiejd2 ( talk ) 10:02, 3 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists , Politicians , Royalty and nobility , Ireland ,  and United Kingdom .  Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 10:43, 3 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  In the case of dukes I believe they should be kept even if they do not sit in the House of Lords.  These are the most senior titles in the British peerage and there aren't many of them.  The Duke of Leinster is also the premier duke of Ireland.  -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 12:06, 3 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] WP:ITSNOTABLE .  Dukes aren't inherently notable, and we have previously deleted articles about Dukes before .  Pilaz ( talk ) 22:20, 8 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Not so - see below.  Ingratis ( talk ) 09:18, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  I agree with Necrothesp .  -- Editor FIN ( talk ) 09:40, 5 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge . I can't see what is notable about him beside that he inherited some renowned title. Which does not gives him anything beside the right of participating in some obscure elections and precedence in some kind of social gatherings. If he does something notable like winning such an election, a distinct article would be reasonable. The notable parts of the article are already in the article on the title. -- Theoreticalmawi ( talk ) 21:35, 7 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Theoreticalmawi , thoughts on a redirect?  Pilaz ( talk ) 17:55, 26 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Duke of Leinster per WP:ATD .  This nobleman fails WP:GNG , doesn't qualify for WP:NPOL due to not being in the House of Lords, and ultimately Wikipedia articles can't just be genealogical entries .  Both keep ! votes fail to address the core rationale of the nominator, which is that the sources do not provide significant coverage of the subject of the article.  My source assessment table: Source assessment table: prepared by User:Pilaz Source Independent?  Reliable?  Significant coverage?  Count source toward GNG ?  https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1511572/A-Californian-claimant-an-escape-from-the-trenches-and-the-fight-for-a-dukedom.html Two sentences about the subject.  Not WP:SIGCOV .  ✘ No https://web.archive.org/web/20120731141943/https://debretts.com/people/biographies/search/results/928/Maurice%20FitzGerald%20LEINSTER.aspx Some or all data (like the "hobbies" section) likely submitted by the subject.  WP:TERTIARY source - Debrett's Peerage is a reference work , and tertiary sources are not considered towards meeting the GNG.  The information presented here is also not SIGCOV.  ✘ No https://www.irishtimes.com/news/thomas-earl-of-offaly-killed-in-car-accident-1.73895 Just namechecked.  Not SIGCOV.  ✘ No https://web.archive.org/web/20120222234119/http://www.lanwades.com/l_information/ WP:SPS ✘ No https://web.archive.org/web/20151222141342/https://announcements.telegraph.co.uk/deaths/193369/fitzgerald The Telegraph announcements are submitted by the readers.  No mention of the duke.  ✘ No https://books.google.it/books? id=3aU-AQAAIAAJ&q=%22Edward%22+1988+%22Lord+John+FitzGerald%22&redir_esc=y WP:TERTIARY source - Debrett's Peerage is a reference work , and tertiary sources are not considered towards meeting the GNG.  The information presented here is also not SIGCOV.  ✘ No The Telegraph article titled "Battle over Irish dukedom settled" (not archived anywhere).  Some likely version of this article survives in this forum: https://www.leinsterfans.com/forum/viewtopic.php? t=5996 Barely namechecked.  Almost all of the article is about the other claimant to the title or the common ancestors.  ✘ No https://www.scotsman.com/news/dna-test-the-latest-twist-in-aristocratic-tale-of-a-cowboy-a-gambler-and-a-web-of-deceit-1697629 Namechecked twice.  ✘ No https://web.archive.org/web/20111006090053/http://www.leinsterleader.ie/news/local/moving_maynooth_visit_by_fitzgerald_1_1937176 This article talks about the brother of the duke.  The duke only gets a passing mention.  ✘ No https://web.archive.org/web/20170922005021/http://hermionefitzgerald.com/ Website of the duke's daughter.  No mention of the duke.  ✘ No https://web.archive.org/web/20170922005021/http://hermionefitzgerald.com/ WP:UGS ✘ No This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor.  Created using {{ source assess table }} .  Pilaz ( talk ) 23:29, 8 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Duke of Leinster.  Spleodrach ( talk ) 16:37, 10 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, CycloneYoris talk!  01:47, 11 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - on a point of accuracy, the article referred to above on the 13th Duke of Manchester was only deleted because of problems with the succession, in that it was very unclear whether the subject of the article was to be the next duke.  Once this was resolved, the article was restored.  So - despite the assertion to the contrary, no articles on dukes have previously been deleted (!vote to follow).  Ingratis ( talk ) 07:31, 13 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This is a misrepresentation of the close , as the article was clearly deleted on the grounds of not passing WP:N , with the closer stating " I'm sufficiently satisfied to agree that he isn't notable ."  The closer discounted the "having inherited/not inherited" arguments anyway, because they stated that inheriting the title or not was not sufficient to demonstrate notability (" even if he did there is a question about inheriting notability. The title no longer confers legislative responsibilities because of the Lords reforms; he's not a member of the House of Lords and plays no role in the UK legislative process, all but extinguishing any notability he may once have had pre Lords reform ").  Pilaz ( talk ) 14:13, 27 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect .  Very little of the article is about him personally, as opposed to his title or family.  2601:249:9301:D570:1877:1728:C421:31DB ( talk ) 18:46, 13 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , after much consideration - the rules and the spirit are pretty much diametrically opposed here.  (a) The Rulez, having first taken care to disqualify all the usual sources for peerages, are clear in one direction: inadequate sources, no SIGCOV, NOTGENEALOGY = no article; and I can't disagree that there is not much to be said about the biography of this man, who has clearly opted for a very private life.  However,  (b) The Spirit, as in the policy WP:IAR , is equally clear in the other direction, as summarised by Necrothesp above: this is not just any "ordinary" peer but a duke, one of the very few still around, and not only that but the premier peer in the peerage of Ireland (the nom's talk page has an interesting sidelight on that) - enough to justify an article, even if it is only a short one.  Although I don't know to what extent readers are now taken account of, this is an article that would be expected to be found and its absence would be very puzzling.  On the question of genealogy, genealogy and the peerage go together: there is such a thing as "notable genealogy", and that of dukes would count as such.  If Wikipedia is going to include the peerage at all, it should do so properly, rather than picking holes all over the place, to create a sort of Swiss cheese effect, to the detriment, again, of readers rather than editors.  Ingratis ( talk ) 09:18, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm well aware that calls to IAR are invariably met with cascades of withering scorn poured from a great height, but tough - it's still a policy.  Ingratis ( talk ) 09:22, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Duke of Leinster per User:Pilaz .   I could find no significant coverage of the present duke at all and he doesn't meet WP:NPOL .  As to User:Ingratis 's point, the Duke of Leinster is notable but the present duke has clearly led a quiet life - unlike most of his ancestors.   See [68] Fiachra10003 ( talk ) 22:45, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Relisting, there is a divide between those editors advocating Redirect and those arguing for a Keep.  Could those wanting to Keep this article respond to the source analysis done that indicates the lack of sources establishing GNG?  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  01:25, 18 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep based on the seniority of his title.  Axisstroke ( talk ) 16:28, 18 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  I agree with what Wikiejd2 ( talk ) said.  This is about a person who has done nothing significant (nothing that's mentioned, anyway) but has a title.  Athel cb ( talk ) 08:58, 18 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - replying directly to Liz's question: the sources analysis tickbox summarises the rules, as far as that goes; but in this instance it doesn't go very far, or in the right direction.  The premier peer in the Irish peerage cannot not be notable - except of course within the esoteric meaning of the word here in Wikiworld.  But firstly, WP:NOTGENEALOGY is now customarily read very literally to exclude all genealogical information from notability except as a footnote to some other notability, whereas with peers especially the genealogy itself often IS the notability.  Secondly, even if that genealogical barrier were overcome, the usual sources for current UK biographical / genealogical information have all already been disabled: any attempt to source from Burke's or Who's Who or Debrett's, or any online site, or even sources like "Times" obituaries, will be dismissed with contempt, having been previously "discussed by the community" on obscure noticeboards by small groups of editors with little or no knowledge or interest in the subject.  So there's no real room to argue against the tickbox within the rules, whence IAR.  As a general comment, because the British peerage is not a particularly popular subject, except among a subsection of UK editors, it's been possible to do this without attracting much attention, but it's part of the broader reductionist / regulatory trend that's been much more visible in WP:NSPORTS , especially WP:NOLYMPICS , and presently being fouught out at GEOROAD where the issues are more plainly expressed.  The final outcome is always the same: to reduce a comprehensive coverage of a specialist subject to a few isolated highlights, probably as a bad case of WP:NIME .  Ingratis ( talk ) 10:01, 25 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep The duke of leinster and the FitzGerald aristocrats feature heavily in Irish history.  This article could be better written but it provided me with a useful resource this morning to understand where they have ended up today.  Thanks, Ballystrahan ( talk ) 08:37, 27 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Ballystrahan , the history of the family may heavily be featured in Irish history, but this article is about the current duke, not the family ( Duke of Leinster ).  The question at hand is whether a sufficient number of reliable sources provide significant coverage of the current duke ( WP:GNG ).  Can you comment on the sources discussed in this deletion discussion, or provide new ones?  Pilaz ( talk ) 10:35, 27 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Fair enough!  He is featured (very briefly!) in the UK's Who is Who website: https://www.ukwhoswho.com/display/10.1093/ww/9780199540884.001.0001/ww-9780199540884-e-23041? rskey=ty8mGe&result=1 The following book may be of use also, though it probably ends at his birth: https://www.irishtimes.com/culture/books/the-fitzgeralds-of-carton-house-a-deeply-dysfunctional-family-the-decline-and-fall-of-the-dukes-of-leinster-1.1837003 I'm afraid that is all currently I have to add to the topic.  Best wishes, Ballystrahan ( talk ) 11:20, 27 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Who's Who UK is autobiographical and generally not reliable per a 2022 RfC (see WP:RSP ), and yes, if the book ends in 1948, I don't think a toddler under 12 months of age gets SIGCOV.  Pilaz ( talk ) 13:55, 27 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] 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.

Discussion outcome: redirect