r |
|||
Line 28: | Line 28: | ||
But I meant that that's not the important thing here. A king for example who never rules himself is still notable. A high judge is notable if he has done important things before or not.[[User:Max Mux|Max Mux]] ([[User talk:Max Mux|talk]]) 08:29, 7 June 2009 (UTC) |
But I meant that that's not the important thing here. A king for example who never rules himself is still notable. A high judge is notable if he has done important things before or not.[[User:Max Mux|Max Mux]] ([[User talk:Max Mux|talk]]) 08:29, 7 June 2009 (UTC) |
||
:A king or "high judge" has done something to achieve that position. What has the great-great-grandson of a notable person done that is so notable? [[User:Ironholds|Ironholds]] ([[User talk:Ironholds|talk]]) 13:12, 7 June 2009 (UTC) |
:A king or "high judge" has done something to achieve that position. What has the great-great-grandson of a notable person done that is so notable? [[User:Ironholds|Ironholds]] ([[User talk:Ironholds|talk]]) 13:12, 7 June 2009 (UTC) |
||
Pardon, but how can someone be so dumb? |
|||
1) A king has done nothing to archieve this position. |
|||
2) A member of legislature is according to wikipedia guidelines notable. It is not importan HOW someone get to that position (well personally I'm generally for completely elected parliaments but that's not the point). When someone belongs to a parliament he has a relevant position and is therefore relevant himself.pS: Do you think most of the life peers attend regurarly?[[User:Max Mux|Max Mux]] ([[User talk:Max Mux|talk]]) 13:29, 7 June 2009 (UTC) |
Revision as of 13:29, 7 June 2009
Rupert Victor John Carington, 5th Baron Carrington
- Rupert Victor John Carington, 5th Baron Carrington (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) 19:59, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
- Comment I'm no expert on British politics, but is there anything in the article that says he was a member of the House of Lords? Was there a "Baron Carrington seat"? If not, I'd say delete. Mandsford (talk) 21:15, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
- Keep If the nominator believes existing notability guidelines should be changed, Afd is not the place to do it. Edward321 (talk) 22:52, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Serving in the House of Lords auto-qualifies per current notability guidelines. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 01:39, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, the 6th Baron Carrington now occupies the inherited membership. Members of the House of Lords, however this changed in 1999 but the entire process is a bit too complicated to put in a couple of lines. House of Lords Act 1999 is a starting point. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 03:59, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
- The 6th Baron Carrington was far, far more notable as he served in Thatcher's cabinet. I do suspect that a revision of this guideline is in order (if only a minor one) to deal with members of hereditary legislatures.Tyrenon (talk) 05:24, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Member of a national legislature indicates he is clearly notable, based on Spaceman7Spiff's explanation. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:13, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
- Delete. The problem with hereditary legislative houses is that while one may have notionally had a seat, whether one ever actually took it (as in whether one ever actually sat in the seat and voted) is often a fair question. There's another debate on this topic up tonight, but I lean against the automatic inclusion of hereditary members of the House of Lords on the basis of the inherited title alone.Tyrenon (talk) 05:22, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
You can use the same argument for life peers but if they attend is not the point here. They are members of the legislature on a national level and therefore relevant for wikipedia as it is clearly stated in our guidelines. If some people think they should do it otherwise out of a habit they are violating these rules.Max Mux (talk) 07:57, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
A very clear keepMax Mux (talk) 07:58, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
- Max, could you ensure that you don't just vote, but actually provide a rationale? Thanks. ╟─TreasuryTag►ballotbox─╢ 08:18, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
- Delete per Tyrenon, basically. There's a severe lack of reliable sources (the only one listed is self-published) to establish any sort of genuine notability. ╟─TreasuryTag►ballotbox─╢ 08:18, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
- Delete not notable peer.
- Delete, per nominator. Any material on him can be added to the Baron Carrington article. Tryde (talk) 17:34, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Same as the others: it's not the election but the role in national government that makes members of a legislature notable. DGG (talk) 02:37, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
You don't get that it's not the point at all!Max Mux (talk) 18:43, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
But I meant that that's not the important thing here. A king for example who never rules himself is still notable. A high judge is notable if he has done important things before or not.Max Mux (talk) 08:29, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
- A king or "high judge" has done something to achieve that position. What has the great-great-grandson of a notable person done that is so notable? Ironholds (talk) 13:12, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Pardon, but how can someone be so dumb? 1) A king has done nothing to archieve this position. 2) A member of legislature is according to wikipedia guidelines notable. It is not importan HOW someone get to that position (well personally I'm generally for completely elected parliaments but that's not the point). When someone belongs to a parliament he has a relevant position and is therefore relevant himself.pS: Do you think most of the life peers attend regurarly?Max Mux (talk) 13:29, 7 June 2009 (UTC)