Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sir Richard Barrett-Lennard, 5th Baronet

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 keep. postdlf (talk) 04:41, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Richard Barrett-Lennard, 5th Baronet[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

per WP:Notability; no evidence provided in the article of any notability; as we see it notability is not inherited nor is it conferred by a non-noble title Crusoe8181 (talk) 11:27, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article may only be a stub, but it cites an obituary in the Times, and entry in Who Was Who. He is said to have been a bank chairman. Both references are subscription only, but there is clear assertion of notability for the purposes of WP. --AJHingston (talk) 12:08, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Vice-chairman of a major financial institution and got an obituary in The Times. Maybe only borderline, but sufficient for notability nonetheless. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:49, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing presented so far satisfies WP:Bio. There are countless non-notable vice presidents in banks, since anyone higher than a teller is likely to be a VP. Job titles are very cheap, and customers like to think they are talking to someone important. Baronetcies do not provide inherent notability, nor does being included in Who Was Who. Edison (talk) 23:58, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The TSB and the Norwich Union were major British financial institutions and the situation in the UK was rather different from that in the US. The chairmanship of the regional TSB and the vice chairmanship of the Norwich Union were significant posts. Rjm at sleepers (talk) 06:13, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quite. Trying to deny notability of the subject of a stub article where there is prima facie evidence that he or she meets the criteria is rarely helpful or productive. We could have the same debate for almost anyone who meets notability guidelines. You have to know a lot about somebody to judge whether notability is 'deserved', and almost by definition stub articles lack that. I am not a fan of stub articles but they are allowed and some guidelines actively encourage them, so nomination of them for deletion is best avoided unless there is clearly no assertion of notability or the nominator is able to offer more information such as lack of any evidence of notability, neither of which was the case here. And questioning notability of people regarded as notable in the past falls into other difficulties. It may be a value judgement, or it may be a simple misunderstanding of the significance of a person's role not shared with contemporaries. Confusing a VP in a small US company today with a bank chairman may be an extreme example, but that sort of thing is often easily done. Somebody who was described by contemporaries as a steward or secretary, or simply by rank, may have been highly notable - that is one reason why we say that notability is not temporary.--AJHingston (talk) 11:00, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He was not a vice-president; he was the vice-chairman. That means the second most important person on the board, not some minor functionary with a grand-sounding title. British companies do not have presidents and vice-presidents; that's American terminology. It's generally a good idea to understand what you're commenting on before you comment. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:47, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is somewhat anemic, but I used the JSTOR tool above and found a number of references to him in the Burlington Magazine. I suspect a more general trawl would throw up more references. Together with the Times obituary and the Who was Who entry, that fulfills the notability criteria IMO. Let's keep the article for a while, but if it remains a stub, merge it with Barrett-Lennard baronets. Rjm at sleepers (talk) 07:00, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PS I've just found a rather interesting story about his pictures which I am about to add to the article. Rjm at sleepers (talk) 08:11, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PPS I've now also added his Commander of the Order of St John and corrected the date of his OBE. The article is no longer a stub, so my merge suggestion (above) is now moot. Rjm at sleepers (talk) 11:10, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by nominator None of which has the slightest relevance to WP:Notability - OBEs and and other honours shared by many thousands bestow notability no more than an accidental inherited title Crusoe8181 (talk) 11:33, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't make myself clear. It was a DoI, drawing attention to the fact that I had made a number of edits that made me a major contributor to the article. Rjm at sleepers (talk) 11:58, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In actual fact, it has long been consensus on AfD that while the OBE (unlike the CBE) does not confer automatic notability, it certainly does contribute to notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:47, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per AJHingston's arguements above. Finnegas (talk) 12:40, 23 June 2013 (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.