Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Antony Wedgwood


 * 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. -- Cirt (talk) 19:57, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Antony Wedgwood

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Appears to fail WP:AUTHOR. The book he wrote appears to have only a single citation according to Google Scholar:. The other claims to notability in the article are based on being the descendent of notable subjects, but notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. Other uncited facts in the article appear to be normal for a businessperson and not particularly notable as I can find no significant mention of them in secondary reliable sources. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 18:21, 17 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I am extremely concerned that User:ConcernedVancouverite is conducting a childish campaign of intimidation against me. What have I don? I've only written genuine articles about genuinely notable people. He knows nothing about this subject; yet he wades making a mess of things, of that I am not surprised. User:ConcernedVancouverite should be banned for vandalism and being disruptive. Anyway, back to the subject at hand. References? He's in Debrett's People of Today. Perhaps you should get yourself down to a library.  Notability? He's in Debrett's People of Today. Flying Fische (talk) 20:12, 17 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment - I will ignore your personal attacks as you are clearly just very passionate about the topic, but I do encourage you to re-read No_personal_attacks. In terms of the content of your statement, I made a good faith effort to find reliable sources (as Debrett's People of Today is sourced from the individual subject and as such is not truly a reliable secondary source for information about the subject as is evidenced from the Kallakis case  who still appears at ).  But if a person is truly notable they would appear in more than just a self-provided who's who style guide.  As such, as I mentioned, if you would be kind enough to provide some reliable sources to establish notability I would be happy to withdraw my nomination.  Until that point, I will leave it, so that either you or others will do proper sourcing on the article (or barring that delete the article).  Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 21:31, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I do not see why you're going off topic on this. It is you that are constantly attacking me.  The fact that Debrett's may have made one error of judgement regarding content doesn't suggest that it is incompetent to make such judgements generally. Flying Fische (talk) 22:13, 18 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - Notability is not inherited. Wikipedia is not the social register of the British hereditary ruling class. Carrite (talk) 04:46, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - Now Anthony Wedgwood Benn? He's notable... Carrite (talk) 04:47, 18 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. While I attempted to add content and source the article, there simply wasn't much to be found. I did a cleanup, restructure, and added a couple of refs. One ref is the obituary of his father, which only establishes ancestry, while the other ref confirms his role as trustee of the National Churches Trust. In my opinion, the subject clearly does not meet topical notability criteria for authors. While wholly considering the inclusion in Debrett's, this does not equate to significance. Notability has additionally not been established in accordance with the general notability guidelines.  Cind. amuse  08:41, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 12:16, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 12:16, 18 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete No evidence of notability, as far as I can see. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:31, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong keep, well I think so anyway. Look, I know you say that notability "is not inherited" - that's why there aren't any articles on his siblings.  But claiming that notability is never inherited is an extreme form of liberal idealism.  He is the heir presumptive to the Wedgwood Barony, as the 4th Baron only legitimate offspring is a daughter, The Hon. Sandra Wedgwood (it is possible that the 4th Baron could have additional issue, but given his age it seems unlikely).  And so he is mentioned and linked in those articles.  Being ten years older than the 4th Baron, it is possible that he may predecease the 4th Baron and not inherit the Barony, but in that case it will go to the next in line (which would be his son, if he has any, which I'm not sure he does).  Anyway, the family is not so much aristocratic as upper middle class, an industrial base rather than a landed base.  Just his direct line ancestors are father, grandfather, great grand-father, great-great-grandfather, great-great-great-grandfather, another great-great-great-grandfather, great-great-great-great grandfather, great-great-great-great-great grandfather, and even great-great-great-great-great-great grandfather.  Start to add in uncles and cousins, and it's quite clear that being a member of the family is notable.  The Financial Services Act 1986 is a major piece of Thatcherite legislation from Mrs Thatcher's government that led to the Yuppie culture of the 1980s.  A contemporary Guide to it is a historical document worthy of note.  The National Churches Trust is the only national, independent, non-profit organisation dedicated to promoting and supporting church buildings of historic, architectural and community value across the UK, and is clearly an important charity.  Finally, the crucial thing is Debrett's, who are not a bunch of hacks - they're doing this professionally, and are not kidding you when they say he is notable.  Accumulatively these things add up to demonstrate clear notability. Flying Fische (talk) 22:13, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:AUTHOR and WP:BK. The arguments made by the sole defender, above, are absurd, and betray a personal agenda of some kind. Qworty (talk) 23:59, 19 May 2011 (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.