Content deleted Content added
r |
No edit summary |
||
Line 27: | Line 27: | ||
But they are often used here.[[User:Max Mux|Max Mux]] ([[User talk:Max Mux|talk]]) 19:09, 9 June 2009 (UTC) |
But they are often used here.[[User:Max Mux|Max Mux]] ([[User talk:Max Mux|talk]]) 19:09, 9 June 2009 (UTC) |
||
:Well they shouldn't be. I used thepeerage a couple of times early on, and I'll get around to cleaning those up (its on my "things to do" list near the bottom. [[User:Ironholds|Ironholds]] ([[User talk:Ironholds|talk]]) 19:10, 9 June 2009 (UTC) |
:Well they shouldn't be. I used thepeerage a couple of times early on, and I'll get around to cleaning those up (its on my "things to do" list near the bottom. [[User:Ironholds|Ironholds]] ([[User talk:Ironholds|talk]]) 19:10, 9 June 2009 (UTC) |
||
Oh, my goodness.[[User:Max Mux|Max Mux]] ([[User talk:Max Mux|talk]]) 19:25, 9 June 2009 (UTC) |
Revision as of 19:25, 9 June 2009
Benedict Alexander Stanley Baldwin, Viscount Corvedale
- Benedict Alexander Stanley Baldwin, Viscount Corvedale (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Being the son of someone does not make you notable. After the rules for the House of Lords were changed, this person is no longer guaranteed a seat, and should only be added when and if he does. Passportguy (talk) 13:16, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
As a viscount we should include him.Max Mux (talk) 13:17, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- Speedy delete. Non-notable. He is a viscount by courtesy, not in his own right. Please stop creating these articles on non-notable peers or courtesy peers. Tryde (talk) 13:25, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Courtesy or not I think he belongs here. Great Britain is still a monarchy.Max Mux (talk) 13:43, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Monarchy or not, a person is not notable simply because they are a member of a certain family. Otherwise we'd have thousands and thousands of articles on the very extenstive families of the Arab Gulf states. Passportguy (talk) 13:47, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Of course they can be added. Royalty and peers of monarchys are notable.Max Mux (talk) 14:21, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- No they aren't. The cousin of a cousin of a cousin of the emir is not notable. Any person must pass WP:BIO. Passportguy (talk) 14:23, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- Delete as not notable. At this point, just being born appears to be his claim to notability. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:47, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Wikipedia clearly rejects inherited notability. The subject of the article must be notable. Everyone who has hereditary title is not notable. You could make a better case that anyone who is knighted by the Queen has a better claim to notability with that honorary title than someone with an inherited one. Drawn Some (talk) 15:35, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- Delete or Redirect per nominator.
- Speedy delete as someone who is very obviously non-notable (yes, their grandfather might have been—I almost care). ╟─TreasuryTag►Africa, Asia and the UN─╢ 17:01, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- Speedy delete. Whatever you think of fully fledged peers (and people know my view in regards to passing WP:BIO) the possessors of courtesy titles are not inherently notable. Yes, Britain is a monarchy - that doesn't make him notable. Pull some policy out and then come back with an argument. Ironholds (talk) 17:20, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- Delete per Drawn Some and Ironholds. Livitup (talk) 17:24, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- Keep The links are showing his notability.Max Mux (talk) 18:06, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- 3 of the sources are not considered reliable and one is a copy of Wikipedia's material on the topic. Ironholds (talk) 18:08, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- For info, the links "not considered reliable" are classed so because they are self-published. ╟─TreasuryTag►without portfolio─╢ 18:57, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- 3 of the sources are not considered reliable and one is a copy of Wikipedia's material on the topic. Ironholds (talk) 18:08, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
But they are often used here.Max Mux (talk) 19:09, 9 June 2009 (UTC)