Vintagekits (talk | contribs) →[[Sir Keith Arbuthnot, 8th Baronet]]: what an absurd comment |
Vintagekits (talk | contribs) →[[Sir Keith Arbuthnot, 8th Baronet]]: lock step voting |
||
Line 55: | Line 55: | ||
::'''Coment'''You appear to wish to speak "to editors" from a position of superiority which, alas, does not accrue to you. I would say from reading your comments on this page you are biased against people with titles. As you are so repetitive, I shall join you: like it or not, being a baronet is notable in itself in Great Britain. [[WP:N]] is a ''guideline'' only, and the template on that page specifically states: "it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception." I think that if you have an axe to grind you should remove it from Wikipedia, instead of trying to use Wikipedia guidelines or rules as a cover. [[User:David Lauder|David Lauder]] 22:22, 8 March 2007 (UTC) |
::'''Coment'''You appear to wish to speak "to editors" from a position of superiority which, alas, does not accrue to you. I would say from reading your comments on this page you are biased against people with titles. As you are so repetitive, I shall join you: like it or not, being a baronet is notable in itself in Great Britain. [[WP:N]] is a ''guideline'' only, and the template on that page specifically states: "it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception." I think that if you have an axe to grind you should remove it from Wikipedia, instead of trying to use Wikipedia guidelines or rules as a cover. [[User:David Lauder|David Lauder]] 22:22, 8 March 2007 (UTC) |
||
::'''Coment''', "trying to use Wikipedia guidelines or rules as a cover" - maybe my comments just sound superior because I use wiki policies to make my decisions instead on POV.--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] 00:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC) |
::'''Coment''', "trying to use Wikipedia guidelines or rules as a cover" - maybe my comments just sound superior because I use wiki policies to make my decisions instead on POV.--[[User:Vintagekits|Vintagekits]] 00:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC) |
||
*To the admin closing this AfD, please note a number of editors who have !voted on this !vote have been involved in vote canvassing and now what another administrator has called “lock step” voting. Over the past months a number of editors have been accused of !voting on the basis of what “they like” rather than using the rationale of wiki policies. A number of central users such as [[User:Astrotrain|Astrotrain]], [[User:Kittybrewster|Kittybrewster]], [[User:Counter-revolutionary|Counter-revolutionary]], [[User:David Lauder|David Lauder]], [[User:Major Bonkers|Major Bonkers]] but at times have also included [[User:Fraslet|Fraslet]] and to a lesser extent [[User:Weggie|Weggie]] and [[User:Gibnews|Gibnews]] and also [[User:El chulito|El chulito]] and [[User:Inthegloaming|Inthegloaming]] who I very strongly suspect are/were socks. |
|||
All of the above can by generally stated as voting within the anti [[Irish republican]] and pro [[British]] [[unionist]]/ [[monarchist]]. |
|||
It started with Astrotrain nominating a number of Volunteers from the Provisional Irish Republican Army and canvassing during those !votes. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:David_Lauder&diff=prev&oldid=106906495] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Vintagekits&diff=prev&oldid=106906674] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tyrenius&diff=prev&oldid=106906838] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Couter-revolutionary&diff=prev&oldid=106907038] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Major_Bonkers&diff=prev&oldid=106907475] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Argyriou&diff=prev&oldid=106907634] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Derry_Boi&diff=prev&oldid=106910216] Canvassing for AfD !votes for Raymond Gilmour [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Antoine_Mac_Giolla_Bhrighde&diff=prev&oldid=103229168] |
|||
Since then there has been what I consider a systematic abuse of the AfD system with a number of a same editors arriving at an AfD on a subject which they either like or dislike and voting to delete or keep on POV rather then wiki policy. The first AfD that occur was – |
|||
[[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/James_McDade|James McDade AfD]] Nominated by [[User:Astrotrain|Astrotrain]]. Result – ‘’’Keep’’’ 13 votes to Keep and 1 to Delete – that vote by as [[User:Astrotrain|Astrotrain]] – therefore 100% of the delete !votes from “the group”. |
|||
Then [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gerard_Montgomery|Gerard Montgomery]] – this AfD was nominated by [[User:Astrotrain|Astrotrain]] on the basis of non notability. However [[User:Tyrenius| Tyrenius]] ended the AfD because of a source that stated that Montgomery was involved in a murder. |
|||
Then [[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Antoine_MacGiolla_Bhrighde| Antoine MacGiolla Bhrighde AfD]], this AfD was nominated by [[User:Astrotrain|Astrotrain]] on the basis of non notability. Result – '''no consenus to delete''', Keep 7 votes and Delete 7 votes – 5 of those votes from “the group” – therefore 71% of the delete votes to delete from “the group” in an article that was kept. |
|||
Then [[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Charles_Breslin|Charles Breslin AfD]], this AfD was nominated by [[User:Astrotrain|Astrotrain]] on the basis of non notability. Result – '''no consenus to delete''', Keep 4 votes and Delete 4 votes – 2 of those votes from “the group” – therefore 50% of the delete votes to delete from “the group” in an article that was kept. |
|||
Then [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Martin McGartland| Martin McGartland AfD]], this AfD was nominated by [[User:Astrotrain|Astrotrain]] on the basis of non notability. Result – '''Keep''', Keep 10 votes and Delete 1 votes – that of Astrotrains |
|||
Then [[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Diarmuid_O%27Neill| Diarmuid O’Neill AfD]], this AfD was nominated by [[User:Astrotrain|Astrotrain]] on the basis of non notability. Result – '''No consensus''', This is where the real vote staking operation started and canvassing came into effect. Keep 20 votes and Delete 10 votes – 5 of those votes from “the group” – therefore 50% of the delete votes to delete from “the group” in an article that was kept. Note the first eight !votes were to Keep and that is when the canvassing started and since then there has been almost total lock step. |
|||
Then [[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Charles_Breslin|Charles Breslin AfD]], this AfD was nominated by [[User:Astrotrain|Astrotrain]] on the basis of non notability. Result – '''no consenus to delete''', Keep 4 votes and Delete 4 votes – 2 of those votes from “the group” – therefore 50% of the delete votes to delete from “the group” in an article that was kept. |
|||
Then we had a AfD of a biography relating to a member of the “British nobility”. This was the [[WikipediaWikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Robert_Murray_Arbuthnot| Robert_Murray_Arbuthnot AfD]], this AfD was nominated by [[User:Argyriou| Argyriou]] on the basis of non notability. Result – '''Delete''', Keep 4 votes and Delete 9 votes – 3 of those votes from “the group” – therefore 75% of the votes to keep from “the group” in an article that was deleted |
|||
Again back to an Irish republican and the [[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Martin_McCaughey| Martin_McCaughey AfD]], this AfD was nominated by [[User:Tyrenius|Tyrenius]] on the basis of non notability. Result – '''Keep''', Keep 16 votes and Delete 12 votes – 7 of those votes from “the group” – therefore 58% of the votes to delete from “the group” in an article that was kept. |
|||
Similar behaviour and calls for deletion in an number of AfD’s of members of the [[Provisional IRA East Tyrone Brigade]] such as the [[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tony_Gormley|Tony Gormley AfD]] – bios of each of those that were merged not deleted can be seen on the of the bottom of the page that they were merged to. |
|||
The [[WikipediaWikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/%C3%93glaigh_na_h%C3%89ireann_%28CIRA_splinter_group%29| Óglaigh na hÉireann (CIRA splinter group) AfD]], this AfD was nominated by [[User:Astrotrain|Astrotrain]] received no delete votes and result was ''speedy keep'''. |
|||
There are on going AfD’s which the same pattern at the [[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Federal_Commonwealth_Society| Federal_Commonwealth_Society|]] (here is where admin [[User:MrDarcy|MrDarcy]] highlights this potential stalk voting), [[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Lady_Mabel_Fitzwilliam| Lady_Mabel_Fitzwilliam]] and now [[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sir_Keith_Arbuthnot%2C_8th_Baronet|here]]. |
Revision as of 00:16, 9 March 2007
Sir Keith Arbuthnot, 8th Baronet
- Sir Keith Arbuthnot, 8th Baronet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
Contested prod with the edit comment of 'notable'. This article is a biography where the only claim to notability is the title, Baronet. The title, although 'it is a hereditary honour', it 'is not a peerage and has never entitled the holder to a seat in the House of Lords'. This means that the title has no claim to notability based on heridtary right of input to the British Parliamentary or legal systems. So, whilst the first holder of the title may have (had) a claim to notability through the title, all subsequent holders claim to notability based on the title is that a family member may have been notable. Long established consensus is that 'notability cannot gained from relationship' and 'Wikipedia is not a genealogical database'. As the article offers no other claims to notability the subject fails WP:BIO and as the article offers no sources per WP:ATT it also fails policy. Nuttah68 15:43, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: the nominator here, about whom I can find virtually no information, has been accused on his talk page of "abusing the speedy deletion process by nominating articles that are not clear targets for speedy deletion." He appears from that page's contents to be very busy in deleting other editor's work. David Lauder 13:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment, If I was you I would not worry about the editor who has nominated I would concentrate on proving some sort of notability other the inheriting a minor title.--Vintagekits 13:32, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment, Well, you're not me, and your sneering comment about "minor titles" (I take you don't have one?) is also uncalled for. I am indeed worried about editors who are deleting pages all over the place. Do you have no respect for the overall project here? David Lauder 13:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment, you've lost me! what sneering? Baronet is a minor title! What overall project? As for title - I am a Volunteer what are you?--Vintagekits 13:49, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment, Volunteer is neither a title nor a rank. - Kittybrewster 14:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment, Well I can assure you I do not seek or wish to have a title but the guys down in the St. Vincent de Paul appreciate the time and help I give! Now back to proving notability for this dude - have you got any proof of notability? otherwise I am going to leave me !vote for delete or merge.--Vintagekits 14:55, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment, Volunteer is neither a title nor a rank. - Kittybrewster 14:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment, you've lost me! what sneering? Baronet is a minor title! What overall project? As for title - I am a Volunteer what are you?--Vintagekits 13:49, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment, Well, you're not me, and your sneering comment about "minor titles" (I take you don't have one?) is also uncalled for. I am indeed worried about editors who are deleting pages all over the place. Do you have no respect for the overall project here? David Lauder 13:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment, If I was you I would not worry about the editor who has nominated I would concentrate on proving some sort of notability other the inheriting a minor title.--Vintagekits 13:32, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: the nominator here, about whom I can find virtually no information, has been accused on his talk page of "abusing the speedy deletion process by nominating articles that are not clear targets for speedy deletion." He appears from that page's contents to be very busy in deleting other editor's work. David Lauder 13:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- Strong keep. Numerous references to him in non-genealogical books. - Kittybrewster 15:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I'm referenced in numerous sources, phone book, electoral register, dispatches, ship's log, promotion boards and so on. However, none of these establish notability. Would you care to add to the article text and references that explain the subjects notability? Nuttah68 16:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- Was it necessary for you to respond in such a sneering manner here? David Lauder 13:29, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. The article doesn't even say what his occupation is; "baronet" is a title, not a career. --Metropolitan90 16:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: If a baronet is announced at a function people don't run up to him and ask him what his career is! Being a baronet is notable in itself. David Lauder 16:22, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep- per Kitty. Baronets give the holder, and their families, a place in the Order of precedence in both England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Astrotrain 16:57, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment, - How does having a "place in the Order of precedence" convey notability in term of wiki policy?--Vintagekits 11:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- Because, as the Wikipedia page on this points out, "Order of Precedence is a sequential hierarchy of nominal importance of people", so either they are important enought to be in that order, or not. Is it your suggestion that regardless of whether a State regards someone as important, you don't, and you wish Wikipedia to adopt a similar policy? David Lauder 13:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep- Baronets are part of the traditional society and fabric of England (and other parts of the UK) and this sort of information should be available online in Wikipedia, it consumes very little in resources. --Gibnews 17:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment, - So are dustman and chimney sweeps! Maybe we should have an article on each of them also!?! As for your asertion that "it consumes very little in resources" - that is not a valid argument to keep this article. Please try and base you !votes on wiki policy.--Vintagekits 11:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Keep - Baronets are generally of inherent interest. If this article were to be expanded it should improve. It should not be deleted.--Counter-revolutionary 17:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - Can we please base !votes on Wiki policy and not on whether or not you "like it" or not as the case my be. Inheriting the title of Baron or Baronet is not in itself noteworthy and therefore fails WP:BIO and even the defunct proposal of WP:NOBLE. I will look at this again in a few days before I !vote but unless some other form of notability can be proven that does not relate to simply holding one or more honorary titles then I am leaning towards delete. Also adding "strong keep" as two editor have done above on the basis that this person is a Baron is in my opinion showing strong signing of POV rather than basing !votes on wiki policy.--Vintagekits 17:33, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment, Firstly, a baronetcy and a barony are differen things. All barons are automatically notable in Wikipedia, as all were, until recently politicians also. This has nothing to do with being "honourary", which is a word meaningless in this concept. Of couse editors have to express PoV here, without a point of view as to whether the article should be kept it would be impossible to comment at all! --Counter-revolutionary 17:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment, I refer you to WP:N and in particular Wikipedia:Notability_criteria#Notability_is_not_subjective. Contributions to AfD should not be rooted in POV but based on policy and fact. Nuttah68 17:53, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment, - Counter-revolutionary you state that "All barons are automatically notable in Wikipedia" - can you show me where it states this in wiki policy?--Vintagekits 11:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - WP:BIO suggests that "politicians who have held international, national or statewide/provincewide office, and members and former members of a national, state or provincial legislatures" are automatically notable. In the UK, a Baron until recently had an automatic right to sit in the national upper legislature.
- comment Also, WP:BIO says he is notable if he is part of the "enduring historical record". Aren't noblemen part of the enduring historical record? Davidicke 21:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - Whatever you think about the British honours system (and I sense that some contributors to this discussion are against it: I confess I myself find it significantly batty and, on a serious note, potentially corrupting) it is a part of public life in the UK that seems to interest plenty of folks in UK and anglophone places which used to be 'owned' by UK. These guys enjoy disproportionate influence to the irritation of some and the delight (presumably) of others, but wiki is (I hope) concerned with facts much more than with reactions to facts (until of course those reactions become facts in their own right: but that's an extract from another discussion). If those people who buy and consult Burke's and its ilk in libraries and record offices google their interest on-line, it would be nice for wiki to be in the 'market' for their 'e-custom'. So please keep it. But please, someone who knows, expand it. The guy must have done something interesting since leaving uni, and if he was really such a blushing violet he surely would not have let them give him an entry in Who's Who. Or? Charles01 19:19, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment There are well over 1,000 baronets, and if they are notable, then so are all Knights of different hues, etc, and there's a lot of them. Are baronets really *automatically* notable? EliminatorJR Talk 19:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment >1 000 minor British aristocrats automatically notable? Clearly not. The fact that they appear in widely distributed works of reference (Burke's, Who's Who...) suggests that someone somewhere thinks them potentially notable. The fact that those works of reference are provided for consultation in libraries in UK and (especially) those corners of the Anglosphere where for good and bad reasons many people have a warm fuzzy feeling for British tradition (ok, I'm thinking of most of Canada outside of Quebec, but I think it also applies elsewhere) suggests either that the acquisiton policies of those libraries are wrong or else that people are interested. Should they be interested? Is that a question for us to ask? Should all >1 000 baronets get a wiki article? Only if a wiki contributor (who is also, presumably, a more than averagely committed wiki reader) bothers to write one. Several people seem to have bothered to contribute to the article on Arbuthnot, tho I agree that no one seems to have found anything very compelling to write about him. But that's my judgement (and I guess yours). Will all >1 000 baronets get a wiki article? Same answer: seems unlikely. That applies across all categories: there are thousands of academics who deserve a wiki article. Some get them: some don't. Ditto medieval bishops. Ditto very small towns in Ohio. There is a wiki constituency who think Arbuthnot is interesting: we disagree. Maybe we disagree about other much more important issues about which we both feel much more passionately: I hope we are not going to move from that to seek to restrict one another's rights to express our opinion. The web offers huge possibilities for opening up knowledge: it's impossible to know which bits of knowledge will be most valued in five or fifty years time. But the troubling aspect is the way that by commonising our knowledge database, the web is actually being used to try and impose sets of politically convenient values on the rest of us. I think that this does not lie comfortably with the wiki mind-set. Or am I wrong about the wiki mindset? Ah, well... Have a nice day anyhow. Charles01 12:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- What? Can you please stick to outlining how this person is notable as per wiki policy. You state that "Several people seem to have bothered to contribute to the article on Arbuthnot, tho I agree that no one seems to have found anything very compelling to write about him." therefore you do not think that he is notable. It sound like you are arguing in favour of a merge to Arbuthnot baronets rather than a keep. Can you please make it clear why exaclty you think that this person in notable--Vintagekits 12:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- He has stated "keep".--Counter-revolutionary 15:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - Whos Who entry and I'm persuaded by the arguments about the place of the Baronet in the UK Weggie 20:13, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. I agree with Charles01's assessment of why we should have articles on people like this. Proteus (Talk) 21:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete This person went to college and got married, twice, and fatherd children. That is all that is claimed besides having trivial directory listings based on who his father was. There is no "inherent notability" policy which lets such nonnotable persons have articles, any more than the son of a politician would be inherently notable enough for an article. Fails WP:BIO and WP:N. Only appears to satisfy "ILIKEIT" on the part of persons enthralled by titles. "Order of precedence" apparently implies where he gets to sit at the dinner table based on who his father was, which does not dictate encyclopedic notability. It is not a line of succession to be head of state. Edison 23:01, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep per all above. You could say Elizabeth II only got married and has trivial directory listings based on who her father was. Jcuk 23:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment No, there are actually articles on things Elizabeth did with her life which were productive and which were controversial. She has also been a character in a movie which gained an actress an Academy Award. She also has served as a constitutional monarch. Perhaps you are thinking of her distant relatives who are claimed to be notable solely on the basis of their birth. Edison 23:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment, - Jcuk, your comparision with Elizabeth II is a pretty flawed argument. E2 was a monarch and has had books written solely about her.--Vintagekits 11:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- comment Yes, I've even got coins in my pocket with her face stamped on them. She has a highway in Canada named after her too. Davidicke 21:15, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- Redirect to Arbuthnot Baronets. Catchpole 10:26, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep: like it or not, being a baronet is notable in itself in Great Britain. WP:N is a guideline only, and the template on that page specifically states: "it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception." The nominator of this AfD states although "it is a hereditary honour, it 'is not a peerage and has never entitled the holder to a seat in the House of Lords'. This means that the title has no claim to notability based on hereditary right of input to the British Parliamentary or legal systems." He is wrong in this opinion because all hereditary titles in Britain are notable. Today, 2007, no member of the peerage is entitled to a seat in the House of Lords. The Baronetage is always listed along with the Peerage in all publications and apart from the old right of a seat in The House, they are regarded as both noble and part of the titled aristocracy. Today they are on an entirely level playing field with the peerage. No member of the peerage or baronetcies has ever had "a hereditary right of input in the British legal systems", unless it was passing legislation. This baronet appears in Debrett's Distinguished People of Today, the editors of which contend, in an article in The Guardian (6 Feb 89), contains "the most distinguished people in the country - all those listed truly deserve their place".
I would also contend that deleting biography stubs like this goes against the ethos of the Wikipedia Baronetcies project and will upset the lineage. What should be called for here is not deletion but further research and input to expand the article. David Lauder 13:01, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- Given your comment above don’t you think that considering your comment here when you state that Debretts is not a reliable source but now you are using it as a source that you are hypocritical and voting on the basis or what you like or not and on the basis of wiki policy. Arn't the entries in Debretts actually written by the people themselves?--Vintagekits 21:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: According to The Guardian article of 1989 their editors said that they themselves select notables for their publication. That was 1989 and the publication I cited from was 1988. I knew David Williamson and when he was editor things were done differently. The point here is not what was said on other AfDs but what is being said here. I was answering the remark on notability made by the nominator and I believe that I correctly answered that. David Lauder 22:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- Redirect to Arbuthnot Baronets as suggested by Catchpole, above. Just so nobody accuses me of being against the British honours system, I happen to rather like it, but I believe that on the evidence currently presented, this person's notability is entirely due to the title, and is therefore adequately described on the page to which the redirect might be made. As a slight aside, consider the spirit of WP:ORG (section 3.1.1) with regard to subsidiary organisations; these are grouped with their national body. A similar system would neatly cover all future issue in this line, and separate articles will be quite in order if any of these people do something interesting and notable by Wikipedia standards. – Kieran T (talk) 16:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- either keep or kieran T's redirect. I would think a title conferred by a monarch should mean something to notability, but then again, a majority of living UK baronets do not even have a Wikipedia page. I'm hesitant to suggest outright deletion just because, if otherwise-unnotable Baronets should be deleted, what does that mean for the 50,000 indie-rock bands mentioned on Wikipedia? Who will be more important 100 years from now? Davidicke 17:23, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment a redirect to the Arbuthnot Baronets is fine. I have no problem with an article for the title and articles for notable holders of the title. Where it seems faintly stupid, is splitting an article out from the Arbuthnot Baronets (or any other Baronet page) when there is nothing more of note to add. Nuttah68 17:28, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - Article has 5 external independent sources. The fact that he is listed in Debrett's Distinguished People of Today (for example) must indicate some degree of notability, surely? We must rely on secondary sources such as these to determine notability, rather than judging it for ourselves. JulesH 19:16, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: I don't believe we can consider Debrett's – worthy publication though it may be – to be a granter of notability, because their criteria are different from ours; specifically, they are more interested in notability by reason of title than we have yet decided (by consensus) to be. – Kieran T (talk) 20:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- comment I agree he's notable - but, if he is only notable for his title and ancestry, then perhaps he and his predecessors should have their articles merged into the article Arbuthnot Baronets? As for the question of Debrett, I'd suggest notability is not subjective - a secondary source reputable on this particular topic should suffice for establishing notability, as long as it makes more than a trivial mention of him. If Debrett's is reputed, and if the entry is non-trivial, that should be swell, yes? Davidicke 21:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- Redirect to Arbuthnot Baronets in line with the comments Catchpole, this person is from a somewhat notable family but as we know from wiki precedent you do gain notability because of your relationship to others. Secondly this person has never been involved in any event of note or held any role of note and this should be a warning to editors about allowing individuals an article simply because of an inherited title. People should have to adhere to WP:N, WP:BIO and WP:BLP if they are to have an article - this individual does neither. This an encyclopaedia not a genealogy service.--Vintagekits 21:54, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- ComentYou appear to wish to speak "to editors" from a position of superiority which, alas, does not accrue to you. I would say from reading your comments on this page you are biased against people with titles. As you are so repetitive, I shall join you: like it or not, being a baronet is notable in itself in Great Britain. WP:N is a guideline only, and the template on that page specifically states: "it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception." I think that if you have an axe to grind you should remove it from Wikipedia, instead of trying to use Wikipedia guidelines or rules as a cover. David Lauder 22:22, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- Coment, "trying to use Wikipedia guidelines or rules as a cover" - maybe my comments just sound superior because I use wiki policies to make my decisions instead on POV.--Vintagekits 00:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- To the admin closing this AfD, please note a number of editors who have !voted on this !vote have been involved in vote canvassing and now what another administrator has called “lock step” voting. Over the past months a number of editors have been accused of !voting on the basis of what “they like” rather than using the rationale of wiki policies. A number of central users such as Astrotrain, Kittybrewster, Counter-revolutionary, David Lauder, Major Bonkers but at times have also included Fraslet and to a lesser extent Weggie and Gibnews and also El chulito and Inthegloaming who I very strongly suspect are/were socks.
All of the above can by generally stated as voting within the anti Irish republican and pro British unionist/ monarchist.
It started with Astrotrain nominating a number of Volunteers from the Provisional Irish Republican Army and canvassing during those !votes. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] Canvassing for AfD !votes for Raymond Gilmour [8]
Since then there has been what I consider a systematic abuse of the AfD system with a number of a same editors arriving at an AfD on a subject which they either like or dislike and voting to delete or keep on POV rather then wiki policy. The first AfD that occur was –
James McDade AfD Nominated by Astrotrain. Result – ‘’’Keep’’’ 13 votes to Keep and 1 to Delete – that vote by as Astrotrain – therefore 100% of the delete !votes from “the group”.
Then [Montgomery] – this AfD was nominated by Astrotrain on the basis of non notability. However Tyrenius ended the AfD because of a source that stated that Montgomery was involved in a murder.
Then Antoine MacGiolla Bhrighde AfD, this AfD was nominated by Astrotrain on the basis of non notability. Result – no consenus to delete, Keep 7 votes and Delete 7 votes – 5 of those votes from “the group” – therefore 71% of the delete votes to delete from “the group” in an article that was kept.
Then Charles Breslin AfD, this AfD was nominated by Astrotrain on the basis of non notability. Result – no consenus to delete, Keep 4 votes and Delete 4 votes – 2 of those votes from “the group” – therefore 50% of the delete votes to delete from “the group” in an article that was kept.
Then Martin McGartland AfD, this AfD was nominated by Astrotrain on the basis of non notability. Result – Keep, Keep 10 votes and Delete 1 votes – that of Astrotrains
Then Diarmuid O’Neill AfD, this AfD was nominated by Astrotrain on the basis of non notability. Result – No consensus, This is where the real vote staking operation started and canvassing came into effect. Keep 20 votes and Delete 10 votes – 5 of those votes from “the group” – therefore 50% of the delete votes to delete from “the group” in an article that was kept. Note the first eight !votes were to Keep and that is when the canvassing started and since then there has been almost total lock step.
Then Charles Breslin AfD, this AfD was nominated by Astrotrain on the basis of non notability. Result – no consenus to delete, Keep 4 votes and Delete 4 votes – 2 of those votes from “the group” – therefore 50% of the delete votes to delete from “the group” in an article that was kept.
Then we had a AfD of a biography relating to a member of the “British nobility”. This was the Robert_Murray_Arbuthnot AfD, this AfD was nominated by Argyriou on the basis of non notability. Result – Delete, Keep 4 votes and Delete 9 votes – 3 of those votes from “the group” – therefore 75% of the votes to keep from “the group” in an article that was deleted
Again back to an Irish republican and the Martin_McCaughey AfD, this AfD was nominated by Tyrenius on the basis of non notability. Result – Keep, Keep 16 votes and Delete 12 votes – 7 of those votes from “the group” – therefore 58% of the votes to delete from “the group” in an article that was kept.
Similar behaviour and calls for deletion in an number of AfD’s of members of the Provisional IRA East Tyrone Brigade such as the Tony Gormley AfD – bios of each of those that were merged not deleted can be seen on the of the bottom of the page that they were merged to.
The Óglaigh na hÉireann (CIRA splinter group) AfD, this AfD was nominated by Astrotrain received no delete votes and result was speedy keep'.
There are on going AfD’s which the same pattern at the Federal_Commonwealth_Society| (here is where admin MrDarcy highlights this potential stalk voting), Lady_Mabel_Fitzwilliam and now here.