Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anthony Paul Methuen


 * 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 of the debate was keep. BD2412 T 21:21, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Anthony Paul Methuen
No claim to notability. Nonnotable, no accomplishments or actions listed. EdwinHJ | Talk 02:51, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as non-notable vanity biography. Borderline  (claim of notability: was a military captain). Recommend the article author see WikiMe for writing biographies and/or WikiTree for writing genealogies; article author may also want to consider moving the content to his user page.  &mdash;Quarl (talk) 2006-01-06 03:47Z 
 * Weak keep, needs importance asserted (other than having a peerage title). I hadn't considered the Baron Methuen title before.   &mdash;Quarl (talk) 2006-01-07 22:31Z 
 * Delete. Appears to be a family promotion
 * Keep holder of the title Baron Methuen which seems to be notable enough for its own article. Also.....vanity by a dead man? New one on me! Jcuk 11:11, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. As a Baron, he was eligible to sit in the House of Lords. Clear notability. --Squiddy | (squirt ink?)  11:28, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Clearly notable, minor figure B.ellis 15:57, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Member of national legislature. The article title was orginally in the correct format, but it was moved by the nominator. I have moved it back. CalJW 16:39, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge into Baron Methuen and redirect. &mdash;gorgan_almighty 16:55, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Is every person who ever held a title in the UK notable because they could sit in the House of Lords? If so that would fill thousands and thousands of pages. did this person actually ever sit in the house, introduce legislation or address the house? if not then he is certainly nonnotable. EdwinHJ | Talk 17:51, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. The article Baron Methuen already exists and is not up for deletion. It makes sense that the existing content in Anthony Paul Methuen, 5th Baron Methuen be merged as a sub-heading under Baron Methuen as it is relevant to that article. If you don't think it's notable then nominate that article for deletion as well. &mdash;gorgan_almighty 11:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete, no assertion of notability. There are thousands of barons and other such titled people across history, and being one is not a claim of notability. I disagree with Quarl that being a captain is a claim of notability; captains are even more numerous than barons. --Last Malthusian 19:13, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, I think being a baron is probably too close to being an assertion of notability to stick my neck out. Still don't think an inherited title confers automatic notability, however. --Last Malthusian 19:14, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * comment Does that mean we can get rid of Liz Windsor then? Unless opening parliament and shaking peoples hands are themselves notable activities.......(tongue firmly in cheek here, btw!) Jcuk 21:17, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Tongue firmly in your WP:CIVIL, more like, I don't see any evidence of Mr Methuen being a head of state. But I haven't checked all the Google hits, so I could be wrong! :-) --Last Malthusian 23:28, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Pardon? I wasn't in the least bit uncivil. Jcuk 11:49, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep. Subject may be notable enough, but the article needs to assert his importance.&#160;—  The KMan  talk  00:15, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. I have no problem with this per comments above. -- JJay 00:27, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete non-notable, agree with LastMalthusian. Eusebeus 20:43, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * So with the nominator withdrawing his/her vote, and still no evidence of this chap ever having done anything interesting, now I'm one of only two people who doesn't think that getting a hereditary title (that is, one you get simply by being born) is an assertion of notability. Whoever knew that Wikipedians were such a lot of Old Tories :-) --Last Malthusian 23:13, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I have had that exact same thought. God help us when they discover the squirarchy. Eusebeus 00:18, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The British aristocracy is approximately 1000 times more entertaining than Star Trek, and takes up about 1000 times less space on WP. Your idea of biogs for all the countless gentry is fantastic, too. I'll instruct my butler to commence the project. --Earl Squiddy | (squirt ink?)  of Territorial Waters. 12:15, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Then maybe you can start by telling us what sort of jolly japes this particular gent got up to make him 'entertaining'. I'm starting to sound like a republican here (small r), but I'd wager that the extra 'interest' that attaches to a baron compared to an ordinary person is entirely down to having more money and more media scrutiny. Comrade Malthusian 14:37, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, he devoted his life to improving literacy among marine invertebrates, and is also the inventor of cheese. Seriously, there doesn't seem to be consistency between categories of people. All professional sportspeople are kept, but not all academics (they have to publish something noteworthy). Bishops seem to be kept, and I'd keep aristocrats on the same (admittedly weak) basis - they aren't expected to do anything useful. --Squiddy | (squirt ink?)  15:58, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Also, he probably shot a grouse and set his dogs upon a fox. Eusebeus 17:36, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Neither bishops, nor professional sportspeople, nor academics become what they are simply by being born. There is no comparison. --Last Malthusian 17:55, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Seeing as it incorporates so many more trivial reference works, Wikipedia has room for a complete peerage. Piccadilly 23:23, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * keep. all Baron Methuens are notable. Kingturtle 08:58, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


 * 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.