Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Stronge
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 No consensus. Based on the arguments, I would recommend a merge to Stronge Baronets, but I'll wait for someone else to do this. Waltontalk 16:11, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
John Stronge[edit]
No events of notability shown - existing and getting married does not pass WP:BIO possible redirect to Stronge Baronets. Vintagekits 13:59, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Edison 16:45, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or Merge I think it would be better to have all the shorter articles merged into Stronge Baronets, but the decision should be made by the group working on British peerage based on the guidelines they created on who gets automated coverage. In the USA we give auto-notability down to the level of mayor. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 17:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - a Baronet is not a member of the peerage and doesnt get any powers like peers did.--Vintagekits 17:40, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge or delete Another JP, which is less than a Mayor. But why not just merge and see what happens? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:04, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - JP, Deputy Lieutenant, barrister and Baronet. Part of a series of articles, which it adds to.--Counter-revolutionary 22:31, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep- Deputy Lieutenants and Baronets are notable people Astrotrain 08:00, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, According to a member of the Arbitration Committee and the Peerage Project The presumption of notability for peers has never rested on them being peers in itself, but rather on the fact that up until 1999 most hereditary peerages earned you a seat in a national legislature, and members of national legislatures are presumed notable. Baronets have no such claim, and individual baronets must attempt to meet WP:BIO as individuals], so baronets are not automatically notable. --Vintagekits 12:55, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Stronge Baronets. Non-notable person, fails WP:BIO - titles do not confer notability, JPs & DLs are low-level functionaries. The series is aristocruft, and a walled garden - Tiswas(t) 19:36, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into Stronge Baronets. Peterkingiron 00:04, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and redirect to Stronge Baronets. Deputy Lieutenants and JPs and barristers are two a penny. The former two were jobs handed out to baronets and their like at that time they are no idication of worth, merit or notability. Giano 11:13, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I wasn't aware Wikipedia was a meritocracy. --Counter-revolutionary 11:15, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - An interesting conflation, but nevertheless fallacious. Wikipedia articles are indeed judged on their merit, and the notability of their subject matter is often a product of their merit, but not an indicator of, nor a precursor to it. - Tiswas(t) 11:25, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability of articles is indeed judged on something, perhaps it's merit, but the subject matter of the Article itself cannot be judged on merit, as that would leave many subject areas apparently non-notable. --Counter-revolutionary 11:29, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Further conflation. The notability of an article is not at issue (let's call this meta-notability - e.g., the Bill Frist article is notable, due to media coverage of the article.) It is the notability of the subject matter that is contended. Merit is not a measure if notability, although it may be an indicator or precursor of it. Conversely, notability is not necessarily an indicator or precursor of merit, although it may be so. There is a correlative, not causal, link, between the two. - Tiswas(t) 12:01, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability of articles is indeed judged on something, perhaps it's merit, but the subject matter of the Article itself cannot be judged on merit, as that would leave many subject areas apparently non-notable. --Counter-revolutionary 11:29, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - An interesting conflation, but nevertheless fallacious. Wikipedia articles are indeed judged on their merit, and the notability of their subject matter is often a product of their merit, but not an indicator of, nor a precursor to it. - Tiswas(t) 11:25, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I wasn't aware Wikipedia was a meritocracy. --Counter-revolutionary 11:15, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Deputy Lieutenant of County Armagh is notable position. Edward321 21:10, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, This is a new claim on wiki, the Deputy Lieutenant of County Armagh is a purely ceremonial role can you explain exactly why you believe that this role give automatic notablity?--Vintagekits 21:18, 17 June 2007 (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.