Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rognvald Richard Farrer Herschell, 3rd Baron Herschell

Add links
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. Stifle (talk) 12:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rognvald Richard Farrer Herschell, 3rd Baron Herschell

[edit]
Rognvald Richard Farrer Herschell, 3rd Baron Herschell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Non-notable individual. Having a peerage is enough of a claim to notability to pass A7, but not enough to pass WP:BIO unless they have done other things with their life. While members of the House of Lords are Members of Parliament, the idea that MPs are automatically notable applies to commons members, since those people have done something with their life other than get born. Ironholds (talk) 20:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With statements like that you can delete the article about the queen for examble. Its not an argument here to say "XY has not done anything important"Max Mux (talk) 20:06, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • No, because the queen passes our basic requirements for notability. It is, actually, an argument, because people are included on grounds of notability. For you to show that this person is notable, you must show that they have been covered in reliable, independent and third-party sources. The queen has, these people have not. Ironholds (talk) 20:07, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I have read that and there it is; members of the legislature on a national level! The House of Lords is part of it.Max Mux (talk) 20:12, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    No, the Lords does not. The spirit of the policy refers to elected officials. This is because the idea of "built in notability" is that to become members of the legislature, they have done something important. The Lords were simply born, hardly an achievement. Ironholds (talk) 20:15, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You still don't get it. If something has helds an important office (a notable one) that tell us he or she is important. I say it again

example 1 (according to you): The President of Germany Horst Köhler held other offices before and was elected therefore he is relevant. The queen haven't done anything influential and wasn't elected but is head of state. So she is not relevant.

  • No, I do get it - read what I wrote. The queen passes WP:BIO. She is notable. She is NOT notable under the special criteria you found, because that criteria isn't meant to be used for unelected officials. If you want these pages kept you need to show how they pass WP:BIO, because the special criteria is for elected members. Ironholds (talk) 20:33, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are don't getting anything here and that's not meant as an offense. You clearly don't understand anything I said. Do you know the differences? There are different kind of members. 1) Bishops (all relevant) 2) Life Peers 3) elected hereditary peers 4) law lords (highest judges)

Max Mux (talk) 20:38, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I do, actually - I'm a law and politics student. A law and politics student in the UK. A law and politics student in the UK with an intense fascination with the peerage. Oh, and you forgot the archbishops. The life peers, law lords and bishops are all inherently notable - they've done something with their life. The elected hereditary peers are not, they were elected via a poll of 800-odd lords, not by the public in any kind of directly democratic way. Ironholds (talk) 20:40, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, my goodness.. Only people who are elected by the people are notable? You seem to contradic yourself. PLease explain your reasoning.Max Mux (talk) 20:45, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Okay, I will again. Notability is based around the finding of reliable, third-party sources for the subject of the article. The automatic notability for Members of Parliament, specifically MPs, comes from the idea that there will be some sources out there. Their election was a notable event, their actions within parliament must have got some media coverage, so on. Things are different when we are talking about a hereditary peer. A member of parliament is not given automatic notability because they're MPs, but because the idea is there must be some reliable sources out there. For hereditary peers, this may not be the case. A hereditary peer joining parliament is not a notable event, because the only thing that happened is his father died. Ironholds (talk) 20:49, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we should delete Stalin as well? Max Mux (talk) 20:47, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are of course right but some people don't get it.

Not all. All in the peerage of UK.Max Mux (talk) 21:23, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Clearly meets WP:POLITICIAN. If the nominator believes existing notability guidelines should be changed, Afd is not the place to do it. Edward321 (talk) 22:49, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Which points of WP:POLITICIAN does this person meet? PeterSymonds (talk) 23:23, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    "People who have held national political office", surely.

    I wrestled with this one for a while, because I can see both sides of it. On balance, I don't think we should have a separate article on this guy because there simply isn't enough sourced material on him for an article; but I'm not convinced by the case for outright deletion because I think some reference to a peer of the realm belongs on Wikipedia. Surely there's got to be a list in Category:Lists of peerages we could usefully merge him to.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 00:22, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Notability is not inherited, even if peerages are. I would be a lot more open had the House of Lords retained its smaller size from the early 1800s (when it was somewhere around 100 members in size), but there were a lot of members who never did anything. Some members were notable, but there are a great many peers who are notable only for having been born into the right family, and who well may never have actually sat in the House of Lords (in the sense that while they had a seat, whether they even showed up was often in question). I would also say that this particular issue is a part (mind you, only a part) of why there was pressure to get rid of hereditary peerages.Tyrenon (talk) 05:20, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Its not the point. Anyone belonging as above stated to the national legislature IS relevant.The only answer that makes sense is a strong keep!Max Mux (talk) 08:04, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(The link to Ironholds' proposal is here as well as the discussion. Mandsford (talk) 13:43, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

clearly notable as above stated Max Mux (talk) 15:50, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But that not the point! He had the right.He was a memberMax Mux (talk) 17:36, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I'm changing my vote. I had wondered how it could be determined that someone had not participated in the House of Lords, and the link to Hansard's answers my question. I guess "eligible to vote in the House of Lords" should have been a giveaway. Normally, the presumption would be that if one was entitled to appear in a legislature, he or she did so. I'm sorry, but if you never participated in a session and never voted, then you have not served in your nation's legislature. Mandsford (talk) 20:55, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nominator. Any material on him can be added to the Baron Herschell article. Tryde (talk) 17:38, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notable as member of legislature very strong keepMax Mux (talk) 06:03, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You've been told, self-published sources are not reliable. Please stop adding them in. Ironholds (talk) 06:40, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I added a very brief biography of him at the Baron Herschell article. Tryde (talk) 05:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC) By this I was trying to show how articles on non-notable peers can be merged into the article on the peerage they held. Tryde (talk) 13:34, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They ARE notable!Max Mux (talk) 15:59, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have to be so unhelpful? ╟─TreasuryTag►ballotbox─╢ 16:35, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you say so?Max Mux (talk) 17:59, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That you're unhelpful? Because we tell you things aren't acceptable and you keep using those things over and over again. Ironholds (talk) 18:00, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have also done much that is not acceptable.Max Mux (talk) 18:18, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We're not discussing my behaviour here, we were discussing yours in response to a question you posted. If you have a problem with my actions, post a detailed and reasonable opinion on them on my talkpage and I'll respond as soon as I can. Ironholds (talk) 18:26, 10 June 2009 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rognvald_Richard_Farrer_Herschell,_3rd_Baron_Herschell&oldid=1150990966"