Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Francis Stronge


 * 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 keep. PeaceNT 12:08, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Francis Stronge

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Non notable. Being a knight doesn't make someone notable, neither do either of the positions he held. No non-trivial coverage in secondary sources, fails WP:BIO. Stramash 15:13, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment - this AfD nomination is the first edit by this user! --Counter-revolutionary 16:30, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Didn't you create this article? I see you neglected to mention that didn't you? Please show me where the British honours system is mentioned in WP:BIO, and please stop attacking editors. Stramash 16:36, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. WP:NOT Burke's Peerage. Bishonen | talk 15:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC).
 * Keep, the article states that he was the UK ambassador to Chile. My understanding is that ambassadors are considered notable.  NawlinWiki 15:22, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment The guideline that may have made them notable (WP:ROYAL) was rejected, there's nothing in WP:BIO about diplomats, and this is nothing more than a phonebook entry. Stramash 15:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Keep: Very justified nomination but now greatly improved. It is a great pity, that as with the various members of the Arbithnot family, the only way that certain pages can ever hope to be improved is by nominating them here. Giano 07:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete: This is becoming daft now, I thought all of this non notable baronet business had been sorted out, and even if there were the remotest case for this person being of interest or not, there certainly is not for his father Sir John Calvert Stronge For God's sake what is wrong with this place these days, we don't need these people unless they have done something to distinguish themselves. Giano 16:28, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - a senior diplomat who received one of the highest honours granted by the British Government! --Counter-revolutionary 16:29, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - Ignoring the conflict of interest. That is not one of the highest honours of the British Government, it us a "dip service gong" handed out routinely to diplomats going to posts where the host country will be offended if they are sent anyone without a title. Half the present day residents of Dolphin square have similar decorations. I see we have others of this "illustrious" family who fail to even achieve that. Giano 16:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The "other" you refer to was an MP. --Counter-revolutionary 16:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank God for that - and this one John Stronge? Giano 16:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment'- I have no WP:COI. The nominator is apparently not a new user, no matter what his edit count suggests.  With all assumption of good faith this seems odd.  --Counter-revolutionary 16:39, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep - honestly, my first inclination was to delete — as Giano says, a KCMG isn't really proof of notability — but a Google search reveals that Stronge's rather inept handling of affairs in Mexico (Frank McLynn refers to him as "the absurd bird-fancying British minister Sir Francis Stronge") was in part responsible for Henry Lane Wilson's success in arranging La decena trágica and the accession of Victoriano Huerta, who apparently asked Lord Cowdray to intercede (unsuccessfully) to have Stronge retained as ambassador to Mexico. I don't know that much about the history involved, but his role looks interesting; perhaps someone from WikiProject Mexico would be able to help? Choess 18:02, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. On the basis of a possible WP:POINT. Notable in own right per Counter-revolutionary. --Major Bonkers (talk) 18:16, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment No ad hominem attacks please. Stramash 18:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It isn't an ad hominem attack. I apologise if you see it as one.--Major Bonkers (talk) 20:56, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep: notable under Wikipedia's own guidelines. The nominator has it wrong as you must have done something notable in your life to be knighted in the first place. If being knighted is not notable, then what is its point? Christchurch 18:43, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Which part of WP:BIO does he meet? Stramash 18:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete phonebook entry! Thepiper 18:47, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Very feeble keep. The fact that this cites three credible sources for his service in Mexico in "interesting times" and still doesn't rise above a mere directory entry is rather sad. Choess's comment almost convinces me that this deserves the chance to try to become an encyclopedia article. None of the other keep arguments have merit. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:44, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * keep - notable enough, needs more work on entry. --Rocksanddirt 19:45, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * OK lets keep and ask "Counter-revolutionary" expand. Is there anything to add? The problem here is that certain editors are determined to have as many baronets as possible listed on the project. Now the reasons this is a problem is that they are sacrificing quantity for quality - and that damages the encyclopedia's reputation.  I don't know if that is because they are unable to write a proper article, or there is so little to report on these nonentities, perhaps they feel akin to these people or maybe  have a hidden agenda. I don't know. Whatever the answer Wikipedia is not a "phone book". These people need to learn how to write a proper useful page or give up!  The reason for this being that I and quite a few others are sick of these daft sycophantic pages that achieve nothing but give their own relations a quick and very cheap thrill. Giano 19:55, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * He was not a baronet! --Counter-revolutionary 20:19, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * FGS don't be so facetious, do you truly imagine anyone gives a damn wether he was a baronet or a knight. Only to the English are these things so important.  Just write a decent page explaining why he is notable. Giano 21:57, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep per sourced claims of notability. Knighthood isn't the only claim to notability and the article has expanded since nomination. &mdash; Scientizzle 19:56, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. I believe this individual does meet the notability requirements, and I've found plenty of references to him in The Times; I've revised the article based on the newspaper's obituary. -- ChrisO 20:57, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Obvious keep. Per above. Bad faith nomination. - Kittybrewster  (talk) 21:36, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep on the assumption that a) this is WP:POINT and b) his Envoy Extraordinary rank meant he was the de facto Ambassador to Chile as generally ambassadors have been considered a notable post, the politics of their being awarded notwithstanding. --Dhartung | Talk 21:42, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Nominating this article is WP:POINT?! The good faith is rather lacking round here.. Stramash 21:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm also very disappointed to see some of the way this article is being assessed by some editors. The include-anyone-with-a-title lobby don't have support of the guidelines, but a diplomat at ambassador-level from a powerful nation will frequently have been a notable position, paticularly in the days before air travel. It's depressing to see that the deletionists' apparoach was not ask for more evidence of the significance of the diplomatic role, but to argue for deletion because of the largely irrelevant issue of the title (see Talk:Francis Stronge). I really hope that we are not going to find ourselves back in another long series of these sterile AFD debates, where the pro- and anti-title lobbies try to score points off each other. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:04, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. It is now expanded and sourced. He appears to be notable. --Bduke 01:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per Choess's arguments, and based on the expansion of sourced content in the article since nomination. --Stormie 04:21, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per Choess. It would have helped had this article been tagged as a stub in the first place, because it clearly had room for improvement, but it has now been expanded to the point where notability (per WP:N and WP:BIO) is clearly demonstrated and properly sourced, and there is eviently scope for further expansion.
 * Keep per Choess. Clearly notable and multiple references Kernel Saunters 11:10, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - Key position as ambassador to Chile at the outbreak of WWI, also during and after the Battle of Coronel. Galloglass 19:36, 22 August 2007 (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.