This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
Latest comment: 2 years ago10 comments3 people in discussion
"...the sources in the article are either not reliable, do not provide significant coverage, are not secondary or are not independent." Into which category/ categories do the BBC, The Times and The Daily Telegraph fall? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:08, 16 March 2022 (UTC)Reply
They are required to simply support the claims made where they are used? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:37, 16 March 2022 (UTC)Reply
They are fine for verifiability purposes (WP:V), but they are insufficient to demonstrate notability (WP:GNG) since they don't cover the subject of the article in depth. The problem is notability, not verifiability. Pilaz (talk) 21:13, 16 March 2022 (UTC)Reply
I'm guessing that would reject a source such as this on the grounds that it is promotional and/or WP:SPS? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:25, 16 March 2022 (UTC)Reply
I think so, since it's not independent from the subject. Pilaz (talk) 23:42, 16 March 2022 (UTC)Reply
Seems the only independent source, that gathers all the reliable information about Manners together, in one place, is this Wikipedia article. A perfect reason to delete it then, it seems. Can't be trusted. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:49, 16 March 2022 (UTC)Reply
The article is based on the interaction of the Duke with the Daily Mail, which has been deprecated since 2017, so that likely won't fly at AfD either. That's my personal assessment of that source. Pilaz (talk) 03:02, 17 March 2022 (UTC)Reply
Yes, I found quite a lot of DM coverage on him and the Duchess. The DM seems to love all that Royal and peerage-goss, doesn't it. So some may have filtered down to (even) lesser outlets. But I'm surprised you want to start any Spring cleaning here when I'm sure there are many article stubs on British peers that will never be more than stubs. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:46, 17 March 2022 (UTC)Reply
