Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patrick John Bernard Jellicoe, 3rd Earl Jellicoe

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 delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:28, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick John Bernard Jellicoe, 3rd Earl Jellicoe[edit]

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) 19:59, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

same as the othersMax Mux (talk) 20:50, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see anything that says that he's a member of the House of Lords. He may have inherited a title in 2007 that was an automatic seat prior to the 1999 reform, but he doesn't get a free pass. Mandsford (talk) 21:11, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. He hasn't got a seat.Max Mux (talk) 21:14, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Pre-1999 there would be the "seat in the national legislature" argument (which is based on implied notability...which is another issue altogether), but after then that doesn't exist. Thus in this case this article fails WP:BIO.Tyrenon (talk) 05:26, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Tyrenon and Mandsford. ╟─Treasury Tag►hemicycle─╢ 08:23, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
People involved in this discussion may be interested in my proposal at the talkpage of WP:BIO. Ironholds (talk) 09:16, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable peer.
~~ Phoe _talk ~~ 00:36, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nominator. Any material on him can be added to the Earl Jellicoe article. Tryde (talk) 17:39, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Earls in particular are sufficiently high members of an active nobility to be always notable. (unlike, say baronets, and unlike members of nobility whose titles are no longer officially recognized). DGG (talk) 02:39, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why should they be "automatically notable"? If the individual isn't active, then all your point says is that his grandfather was sufficiently notable. Ironholds (talk) 11:07, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It has absolutely nothing to do with being active in some way.Max Mux (talk) 18:46, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we, and lots of other people, think that it does. Would you explain in your own words, ignoring policy for the moment; a purely "moral" argument—why does this person deserve an encyclopedia article just because one of their ancestors was mildly interesting? ╟─Treasury Tag►sundries─╢ 19:06, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't have anything to do with "being interesting". The UK is a monarchy and Jellicoe has one of the highest titles. Therefore we should include him and other peers such as Dukes, Marquees, Earls and Barons.Max Mux (talk) 08:25, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The UK is a constitutional monarchy - the queen is almost entirely without power, those powers she does have are exercised by the PM. Senior members of the nobility who are not life peers have not necessarily done anything notable per se - their achievement was being born. Ironholds (talk) 13:13, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are people of the public life. For the 100ist time I tell you that the powers someone have is not the only important thing. People who are DOING nothing notable can despite that be notable! Please tell me what has the queen done before becoming queen.Max Mux (talk) 13:32, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Like Ironholds, I have never understood why people should be considered notable merely for having been born. Although I'm not fascinated by royalty-- it's like saying, "You're better than me because you're royal and I'm not"-- royals get covered in independent and reliable sources. I think Mux will concede that Elizabeth was noticed by the media between 1926 and 1952. On the other hand, I see nothing that would justify a similar entitlement to members of the nobility. Earls, dukes, barons, lords, etc., can earn themselves a place like anyone else. Mandsford (talk) 14:28, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I'm against monarchy and such things but that doesn't influence my opinion here.Max Mux (talk) 14:59, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously not. I've explained a dozen times that notability is based on referencing. The queen has been covered by the media, so references are available, so she's notable. Please stop bringing this up over and over again. Ironholds (talk) 18:45, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are links in the article, you know.Max Mux (talk) 06:37, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't been mentioning them, you've just been going "the nobility are notable, just look at the queen". Of the four links you've provided, two are not reliable sources, one confirms he once spoke at a meeting and one confirms his father was notable. Ironholds (talk) 06:50, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are still not completely understanding! Max Mux (talk) 15:04, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article contains even less information on him than the Earl Jellicoe article! Tryde (talk) 13:31, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Evidently notable. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:10, 9 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.