Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Arbuthnot, 6th Viscount of Arbuthnott


 * 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 merge. Consensus is pretty mixed on whether nobility is includable simply for being nobility from the debate here. That said, Viscount of Arbuthnott is not up for deletion. I see no remotely sensible reason presented why we should avoid having a redirect in place. And the keep comments seem to be defending the appropriateness of the material being on Wikipedia, not the appropriateness of a separate page in this instance. Merging is sensible. However, let me remind everyone that merging does not necessarily require a big debate, and this one was certainly a waste of time. Don't forget to be BOLD when appropriate. Mango juice talk 17:16, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

John Arbuthnot, 6th Viscount of Arbuthnott

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

To all those people that think that having a separate article for each peer of England is a good idea- please note that there have been 16 of these not particularly notable people. That's just for this title of the thousands of other titles out there. Yes, hereditary peers had the right to sit in the House of Lords, but the question we should ask is did they actually do anything NOTABLE if and when they ever sat in there. Many did not. This person is not notable in their own right so Delete and summarize this person at Viscount of Arbuthnott. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 08:31, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete. He got married twice and had children. That's the extent of his accomplishments according to the article! Clarityfiend 08:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * NOTE It turns out this person is peer of Scotland so they didn't even have an automatic right to sit in the House of Lords (16 Scottish peers were selected each parliament until 1963 when all Scottish peers were allowed to sit). I would and will though still apply the same argument to English peers if they are non notable. This is not a peerage directory (and even Burke's Peerage doesn't have separate articles for each title holder!). Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 10:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment:He had a right to sit in parliament under the arrangements of the day for the UK parliament whereby those Scottish peers who expressed a desire to take up a seat went in a ballot to choose representative Peers for Scotland. They were elected by their Peers, not "selected". David Lauder 20:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment, I have waited for quite some time before posting this but actually there is no proof that he could have sat in the House of Lords and secondly, and more importantly, even if he could have the fact is that he didnt sit in the House of Lords and therefore Fails the politician criteria pf the notability policy. Unless you can come up with another reason that this person passes WP:N then it is not looking good for the Viscount.--Vintagekits 21:42, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete: Silly page. I have no objection to a page on the title Viscount Arbuthnot explaining how the title came about and when and where etc.; where all the holders could be listed with births and deaths etc., but to have a page for each non-notable holder giving information such as this is plainly ridiculous. Were the 14th Viscount Arbuthnot to discover a cure for cancer, become Prime Minister, play football for England or even become a serial killer that would be a different matter, but as it is lump them all together or delete.
 * Delete per Clarityfiend. If you really can't say anything more than who he married and fathered, he just is not notable. Resolute 13:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep I feel that since John Arbuthnot, 6th Viscount of Arbuthnott had the right to sit in the British House of Lords, and since Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, and we have had no reports that we are running out of server space, we can well afford to have an article for him. If someone cared to dig through paper records, besides just Google resources and family histories, the article could probably be fleshed out. Note that we have articles for every single member of the First Continental Congress, (and probably every U.S. congresssman) apparently based on some notion of inherent notability, however little there is to say about them, and they were opposite numbers in the world's political arena of the 18th century. An example is Isaac Low of whom less can be said than we have about John Arbuthnot. This is more than an "othercrapexists" argument, being based the WP:N provision "Politicians who have held international, national or statewide/provincewide office, and members and former members of a national, state or provincial legislatures." Edison 14:24, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't believe the two situations are comparable. I realise that some people have campaigned to have separate articles for each peer (Wikiproject Peerage people) but I really do believe that it is harmful to and reduces the quality of this project having thousands of articles on non notable peers. The mere fact someone "had the right" to sit in the House of Lords (but many didn't or hardly ever did) does not make them notable as a person unless we have evidence they actually did anything notable in there. If they didn't and and they didn't do anything else which would make someone notable for an encyclopedia then the person can be summarized on the relevant page for that aristocratic title. It is thoroughly pointless to have a separate article for a peer that gives you no further information than what you already know i.e. that they have the right to sit in the House of Lords as a peer. Note however that this person was a Scottish peer so he didn't actually have the right to sit in the House of Lords although 16 representative Scottish peers were appointed in each parliament. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 15:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The two situations are not comparable -- the members of the Congress were libertarians, striving for freedom; the English Hosue of Lords are self-perpetuating blots on the face of the world, whose extenction is close to be achieved. Wikipedia ought not to record those whose only contribution was "he lived, he sprogged, he died, he oppressed and exploited people" -- HenriLobineau 11:32, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment:That is the most disgraceful remark I have seen yet on Wikipedia, which should not become a vehicle for those with such overt political views. David Lauder 20:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete: I was about to (very reluctantly) concur with Edison on the WP:BIO criteria, but I stopped for a moment and considered this beautiful phrase: "... meeting one or more {criteria} does not guarantee that a subject should be included." Given the long odds that this fellow ever sat in the Lords and the complete lack of evidence that he ever did so, and given that there's no information here that couldn't have been picked off of Burke's, there's just not much of a reason to keep this.    RGTraynor  15:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * As I say above I don't believe a source that says a peer took up their seat in the House of Lords is enough unless there is some further detail about what they did in there. If there isn't anything to say about what they did and they didn't do anything else of note then they are not a notable person in their own right (as opposed to being part of their peerage's history) and can be easily summarized on the relevant page for that peerage (no information is "lost"). Gustav von Humpelschmumpel
 * Then as a show of good faith why don't you nominate Isaac Low since there's no evidence he did anything of substance in congress? Then be bold and delete the text in WP:N which imputes notability to every member of a state or national legislature? Why do we have policies and ignore them based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT? Edison 15:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, for one thing, no one's cited WP:IDONTLIKEIT. For another, we know for a certain fact that Low served in the Continental Congress, while odds are quite poor that Arbuthnot ever served in the House of Lords.  For a third, the Low article was expandable, and I just did it; the external link found in the article gave biographical information beyond mere birth/marriage/death info.    RGTraynor  15:58, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think it is really fair to compare a congress member and a British peer. Congressman must have shown some essence of notability or talent to have reached that position whereas a peer doesn't necessarily have to have any talent or notability whatsoever to sit in the House of Lords. If they can be shown to have done something of note while sitting in the House then perhaps they should have their own article, but if it just says Lord x married y and sat in the House of Lords there is no reason why that very small amount of information cannot go on the page of Lords x especially as people are much more likely to such search for Lord or Viscount Arbuthnott (as they are likely to be referred to as such in books) and so arrive at the main page for the peerage rather than search for "John Arbuthnot, 6th Viscount of Arbuthnott". Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 16:33, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep useful connecting info. that fits well with the before/current/after navigation boxes used at the bottom of such articles. Sounds like a policy is needed for U.K. peers. JJL 17:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Why is it useful? Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a peerage directory or genealogical database. The person is highly unlikely to be searched for individually due his non individual notability. If they ever were searched for a person would likely type Lord or Viscount Arbuthnott and arrive at Viscount of Arbuthnott where the very little information on him can be easily placed. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 17:51, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * There are 16 separate Viscounts of Arbuthnott linked from that page right now. Each of them has his own special bio. page. If this one is merged in, there will only be 15, with the limited info. for this one done in-line. I know there have been several Arbuthnott-related AfDs recently but viewing this one in isolation--which is how the nom. is making the argument; this one person is not notable--it seems like it would simply make for inconveniences in the layout of this page and the use of the succession box style. Further, to my mind, the info. that goes in a peerage/baronetage/knightage is reasonably encyclopedic, and this brief info. is of that sort. Each peer getting his own page makes (organizational) sense to me. JJL 18:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it is hardly a valid argument to state that because there are lots of other non notable articles it would be unfair/unbalanced or would somehow destroy a pages layout to delete this one. I fully intend to nominate all the other non notable Viscounts of Arbuthnott and other non notable peers for deletion so eventually Viscount of Arbuthnott will only have a few links remaining to the holders of the title who are notable in their own right. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 19:07, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree that that would be an invalid argument, so I'm glad I didn't make an argument anything at all like it. As to deleting the others one-by-one, why not try to get a policy for this sort of thing? JJL 19:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Well it sounded to me as if you were claiming a reason why it shouldn't be deleted is that this page Viscount of Arbuthnott will be made messy by having this holder's info. merged into it. This can easily solved by adding a short description of each holder next to their name. And I am not even sure it will be necessary to afd all the others as consensus has already been reached that non notable Baronets can indeed be redirected to their title page. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 20:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we should stop being so blinded by the perceived glory and glamour of a title and take some tips from the Arbuthnot family themselves who are slightly less impressed by some of the Arbuthnots when it come to defining notability . Giano 19:16, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. Seems well sourced enough, and, as above, could probably be expanded with some effort. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. notability is one thing - but the last thing this article is is well sourced.--Vintagekits 19:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: For what it is it has adequate source material. David Lauder 20:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


 * When you say "could probably be expanded with some effort" you seem to be assuming that Lords all do something notable enough to get into an encyclopedia- what draws you to that conclusion? Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 19:52, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Because they're Lords who were noted in numerous publications and records? --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:11, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I see two books listed already - that's an excellent start for a stub. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:11, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Um, the only two publications listed are family histories - i.e. publications written by experts on this family- yet the only information from them that can be gleaned on this person is who they married and when they died- I don't think that indicates tremendous notability. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 20:29, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * So even though someone could be bothered to do a family history, that's not enough? I dunno.  I probably wouldn't feel this way if they were, say, car mechanics and not Lords.  --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:50, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Wait a sec - I see from your page that you're a die hard inclusionist so possibly not worth my breath in arguing with you, but to say that because someone has had a family history published of their family means that they become notable for an encyclopedia is nonsense imo. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 20:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, no, I didn't say that. As I said, if they were car mechanics rather than Lords, there might be a different discussion to be had.  But the notability comes from the title, and is advanced by the attention the family has gotten. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Well if you are saying that people who are Lords or that people who are related to Lords are automatically notable I still think you're wrong. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 22:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Following some correspondence, I'm retracting my keep commentary for now. The general idea still remains regarding notability, but I'm no longer in a confident space about this family in particular. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep This is English Wikipedia and not American Wikipedia. These are notable people even if you Americans haven't heard of them.  Wikipedia is not a traditional paper encyclopedia so let's stop deleting articles to save space and other stupid reasons like that.  People come to Wikipedia because it's huge and contains lots of trivial information and lists which are impossible to find in many places.  Let's build this encyclopedia not delete it! Xanucia 23:16, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: What an intelligent remark. I had just about given up hope! David Lauder 20:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - you couldnt be more wrong. This IS NOT English wiki - this is the worldwde English LANGUAGE wiki - big fecking difference.--Vintagekits 23:31, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

*Delete He is not in Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, even as a reference in an article. He was a Scottish Peer, and therefore not necessarily entitled to sit in Parliament. DGG 00:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete or merge, but definitely don't read this as a 'keep'. As the nom says, unless and until we have more than three bullets' worth of information about this apparently utterly non-notable character, there's no reason – practical or philosophical – why he (and his peers&mdash;hah!) can't be folded into the main Viscount of Arbuthnott article.  Indeed, having this in a separate article makes this information more difficult to find, not easier.  As we do with television series, create a list of episodes at the main article and only break out individual episodes when warranted. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Rename properly, and then look again-- it's actually a Keep His name is usually spelled the same as his peerage, JOHN ARBUTHNOTT. with two t's at the end, and this is perhaps why there has been such difficulty in finding references for a Viscount.--I have not been surprised at not finding refs. for miscellaneous Baronets, but I was surprised not to find a viscount, a much higher title. KB's inadequate research once more comes close to jettisoning another member of his family. There is actually some more information available, if you spell the name right. As a start, there is a good account  in Wood's Peerage of Scotland. I'm adding it to the article, as found in Google Books. DGG 02:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry but I really don't think the fact the he "received a legal education, then managed his father's estate and then undercharged for rents because he was a bit thick" makes him notable enough to have his own encyclopedia article. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 12:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep this and any other peer for now. It is not a productive use of time to have a discussion such as this one for every single one of them. For the future, I think many of the less notable individual British peers (and baronets) could be merged into articles on the titles or families, and then perhaps broken out again once the biographies are expanded. Pharamond 05:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Why for the future? Let's start now. There often is nothing noteworthy about an individual peer that can't be said in the main article for that peerage. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 12:10, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Why for the future? Because this is a discussion about deletion. Let's keep this first and merge it afterwards. Same thing with all the other title-and-nothing-else or second-son-of-a-baronet major-generals and so on. Most of them are no more than a few lines and can easily be merged to a more notable father, brother or (as I suggested some time ago) to an article about the family. The Arbuthnots appear to have owned the same manor and been locally and regionally prominent in a certain part of Scotland for some eight or nine hundred years and the significance of the family almost certainly transcends the importance of most individual family members. But why does every single biography have to be taken to a deletion discussion first? Just merge them. In case more relevant information is added later, they can be easily unmerged without bureaucracy or trauma. Pharamond 12:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge very short articles such as this one.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  08:56, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete There are thousands of peers of this ilk we must draw the line somewhere. As this was a Scottish peerage he would not even have been eligble to sit in the House of lords.
 * Comment that was inserted by Couer-Sang who is a single purpose anti-Arbuthnot account. - Kittybrewster  (talk) 00:28, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete Another non-notable person for wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.16.126.1 (talk • contribs) 12:11, June 6, 2007
 * Comment The only contribution by this person. - Kittybrewster  (talk) 00:23, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - Ever heard of dynamic IPs? I'm with BT broadband, and have a different IP everytime I log in. One of the comments above is by me (the 86.134.53.216 one), made a few days ago. Some people choose not to have log ins, not necessarily for nefarious reasons as perhaps you suspect here. I simply hit 'Wikipedia' on my favourites and get on with editing, without arseing around with signing in, remembering passwords etc.  Also I don't want to talk to people particularly, so am not too fussed about checking for messages. That doesn't make my contributions any less valid than anyone else's.  And I still think this ridiculous article on a totally non-notable person should be deleted. 86.134.72.105 15:33, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. Well referenced and easily verifiable. - SimonP 12:17, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete Good god, if he didn't have a title we wouldn;'t be having this argument an he'd have been deleted ages ago. And how does solely possessing a hereditary title make one notable?  People who have been awarded peerages, sure - as they've done something to earn it and are therefore notable.  But this guy - nada. 86.134.53.216 12:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I think the point is we should regard the peerage as the encyclopedically notable entity (we have the page Viscount of Arbuthnott), but not the individuals who held the title unless they have actually done something that would make anyone else notable enough to be in an encyclopedia. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 12:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Genealogy entry untethered from any sort of accomplishment or multiple reliable sources. --Calton | Talk 12:37, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete: Having looked a little further into him I can find nothing of any note that would mark him out for inclusion91.105.210.129 17:39, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment- The only contribution by this user. - Kittybrewster  (talk) 07:48, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - Ever heard of dynamic IPs? I'm with BT broadband, and have a different IP everytime I log in. One of the comments above is by me (the 86.134.53.216 one), made a few days ago. Some people choose not to have log ins, not necessarily for nefarious reasons as perhaps you suspect here. I simply hit 'Wikipedia' on my favourites and get on with editing, without arseing around with signing in, remembering passwords etc.  Also I don't want to talk to people particularly, so am not too fussed about checking for messages. That doesn't make my contributions any less valid than anyone else's.  And I still think this ridiculous article on a totally non-notable person should be deleted. 86.134.72.105 15:33, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment and that way you can !vote as Sang-Coeur and as several different IP addresses. There are advantages in having an ID. - Kittybrewster  (talk) 17:10, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Merge into a general "Viscount of Arbuthnott" article. A title is itself notable... but the individuals who once held/currently hold them, may or may not be. We should have a main article on the Title, and only have seperate sub-articles for those who are notable for something more than just the title. Blueboar 18:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete notability is not inherited at this level. Carlossuarez46 19:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Don't want to make this a referendum on all peerages, but in this individual case, it does appear that multiple, independant sources exist which discuss him in a non-trivial manner. That the article is a stub now is irrelevent.  It appears that baseline notability requirement has been met, in that sources for expanding the article to a non-stub state exist.  That does not mean that every peerage will automatically be notable.  All articles should be tested on a case-by-case basis.  This one happens to pass. --Jayron32| talk | contribs  19:51, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Sorry, but I don't know where you are basing the assertion that the sources listed are (i) Notable and (ii) Contain any information that is non trivial on this person- in fact I am certain that if there was anything non trivial in them they would have already been summarized in the article. They haven't because there isn't anything non trivial there (the sources are two family histories and one peerage directory). Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 21:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: Good heavens! You're not "sorry" at all! For someone who has only been on Wikipedia since March you are certainly making your presence felt! David Lauder 20:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete Not notable in any way.--padraig3uk 20:30, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Redirect - This almost equates with WP:EPISODE - unless a peer has done anything notable in their own right, with enough substantial and verifiable information to warrant an article, there's no reason to have them in Wikipedia. This is not Burke's or Debretts - Tiswas (t) 10:23, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Whilst we continue to accommodate pages like this one it's inappropriate to delete pages which are factually and historically worthwhile.--Major Bonkers (talk) 11:26, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment While that may not be your area of interest at least there appears to be a considerable amount to say about that subject whereas the only thing we can say about this person is they studied, looked after the family estate married and died which we may as well just copy into thousands of other Lords biographies as its probably accurate. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 11:41, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, apart from being of interest to those coming after who might be interested in either the family or region, this article is potentially also of interest in respect of the Clearances and the Potato Famine, which have continuing relevance with the recent passing of the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003. 'Absentee (or indifferent) landlords' are a stock figure of Scottish political demonology, so it is interesting to see a good one mentioned on the site.--Major Bonkers (talk) 12:14, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. Notwithstanding nominator's Saganesque "thousands and thousands" rhetoric, I don't think the situation with the British peerage is out of control in terms of maintainability. I've proposed a solution similar to that which has been suggested here for baronets; however, I feel that the British peerages are sufficiently limited (in contradistinction to the baronetcies) and of sufficiently elevated status, that we're better served by complete, if short, articles on each of them than by trying to boil them into lists. In my opinion, anyway, WP:NOTPAPER carries with it an expectation of completeness: we can afford to create and maintain separate articles on members of the nobility (British nobility, anyway, where 1 title = 1 person), the upper echelons of various religious hierarchies, certain political offices, and so on, even if the incumbent was not particularly accomplished. I think peers are both sufficiently important in general and sufficiently small a group (in relative terms) that keeping individual articles for them is in the best interests of the encyclopedia. Choess 20:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment,We could have them... but do we need them? User:Princess Tiswas has made an excellent analogy between Peerages and their constituant members, and TV shows and their respective episodes. Many episodes of TV shows are in no way encycopedically notable but the TV show as a whole probably is as are perhaps a few "famous episodes". Obviously some TV shows may be so popular that many episodes are deemed "famous". Equally, some peerages have more notable members than others- in these cases we can break out separate articles for the notable members as we do for the notable episodes. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 20:20, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment, A Viscount is not the upper echelons of the peerage - if we were talking about a King, Queen, Prince, Princess or even a Duke then you might have a point - but this is a Viscount!--Vintagekits 20:27, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Gustav, the point of my linking to my proposal in re baronets was to establish that a) I am perfectly familiar with the process of condensation you describe and b) have endorsed it under some circumstances, so that my argument against it in this case is based neither upon ignorance nor general opposition to that process. I simply think that for certain well-defined sets of persons, as I've described above, membership in the set should be sufficient to warrant an article. The downside, of course, is that some articles on non-notable people may have to be kept and maintained. That said, I think lifting the general rule that peers are considered notable will open the gates to numerous challenges by ignorant cranks and ideological ax-grinders, and that the resulting ill-will, destruction of stubs with promise, burnout of peerage contributors on wikilawyering, etc. will cause a great deal more damage to the encyclopedia than the presence and need for maintenance of such articles as this. Choess 23:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Choess, these can be perfectly easily be expanded out from the main article on the Peerage when there is enough notable info there to justify a separate article. For a large number of articles there is really hardly anything notable to say about each one which cannot perfectly easily be said next to the person's name in the main article for that peerage. This is not some great ideological battle, it is simply common sense and will avoid Wikipedia being full up with a lot of articles about people who weren't really notable. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 00:00, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep per Edison and Choess. Wikipedia does not loose anything by keeping this article. Peerages were notable in the day, and so should still be considered notable where accurate records can be found. John Vandenberg 20:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment,That is not a reason to keep the article please refamiliaris yourself with WP:ATA. regards--Vintagekits 20:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * A blacksmith was notable in a village- should we have separate articles for all the blacksmiths that ever lived, or perhaps we should just have the article Blacksmith? Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 20:52, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The difference is that peerage were religiously noted. Blacksmiths were not noted by default. John Vandenberg 21:46, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I fail to see how/why that satisifies WP:N criteria!--Vintagekits 21:52, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Exactly - Verifiability is a criterion of necessity, it is not a criterion of sufficiency. It should be remembered, and noted, that titles are notable when bestowed - otherwise, they are merely inherited. There are clear guidelines and policies regarding this sort of thing. - Tiswas (t) 09:28, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * just out of interest does this policy only apply to the British peerage or can I start to add every "nobile dei" recorded religiously in the many editions of the Libro d'Oro - I think that is only fair, I can start in Sicily where there are thousands and slowly work my way up country. Giano 10:12, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't see why they should be any different. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 15:39, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep: being a Viscount is in itself very notable and the fellow appears to have been quite eccentric and has a piece in James Balfour Paul's The Scot's Peerage on him. The nominator of this AfD can hardly claim to be impartial when it comes to the Arbuthnots. Just a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT really. Others have been told to display a disdain for terrorists on Wikipedia is out of order. Well demonstrating the same disdain for the aristocracy is the same. David Lauder 10:23, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - Conversely, WP:ILIKEIT is equally jejune a reason for keeping. The nomination is on the grounds of lack of notability - the nominator may indeed not like the family, but has been careful in not citing this as a reason. The nominator's motivation is moot - Plenty of editors have expressed their opinions based upon established policy and guidelines. - Tiswas (t) 10:37, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * All peers "have a piece" in Peerages- they dredge up any morsal of info that they can on their subject- and the only morsals that could be dragged up on this one was that he trained in the law then managed his family estates, but not very well. Not notable at all. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 15:39, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete His existence and (possibly?) geneology should be included on the Viscount Arbuthnott page. Thus, having received a mention in the encyclopedia, the questions is Does he require a separate page to record further notable aspects of his life?. The answer is yes if they exist and No if the dont. I myself have set up pages for obscure Viscounts, but, having read the above debate, I really do not think I would contest an Afd to justify their continued existence. Aatomic1 12:37, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You say delete, but your remarks suggest you want it to be merged? -Halo 16:00, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * To avoid any confusion, I have now have added to Viscount of Arbuthnot all that I personally would keep. Aatomic1 21:26, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. The vast majority of British peers historically have satisfied WP:N and WP:BIO by virtue of being members of a national legislature. I do, however, agree that if it could be shown that Arbuthnott never sat in the GB Parliament as a representative peer, then his automatic notability under these guidelines would not apply. Christina Kaye 14:12, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I know members of Wikiproject Peerage have lobbied for that to be the case, but sorry many Peers weren't notable as individuals, the peerage is the encyclopedically notable entity not the individuals. Even if they did have the right to sit in the House of Lords (the house which has had no real power for a long time) many never sat in it, and if they did many did nothing at all worth mentioning in any history book. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 15:39, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I note that on 18:14, 5 June 2007 User:Kittybrewster posted a note on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Peerage which might explain the deluge of keeps since then. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 15:50, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I have never contributed to Wikiproject Peerage, and I'm just applying the guidelines as I find them. It's true that many members of national legislatures the world over (probably the majority) have never done anything worth mentioning in a history book. But if you disagree with the guidelines WP:N and WP:BIO, why don't you try and change them on their respective talk pages? Until they are changed, the only relevant question should be whether Arbuthnott ever sat in Parliament. Christina Kaye 14:10, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Note that this person lived in the 18th century, when the House of Lords was more powerful than the House of Commons. Thunderwing 08:47, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * There is no evidence this person ever represented Scotland in the UK House of Lords. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 13:18, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge somewhere, but otherwise Keep - By deleting this, you're just showing Wikipedia's systematic bias towards modern articles. It's a double standard to have articles on every modern MP or Congressman but not have one on an Earl when they essentially do the same job. Notability generally doesn't change, and Wikipedia is not paper. IMO, Lords are generally notable. Whatsmore, people (including the person who posted to AFD) are falling into the trap of saying just because an article is currently short, that it completely and fully represents all possible information that can be found about a subject. This is a much misused argument on an AFD - the argument is surely "they are not notable and no reliable sources could ever be found" and not "the article is current rubbish, so lets delete and prevent recreation". -Halo 15:56, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Look- this is ridiculous! Peers did not "do the same job" as MPs! Many peers never even sat in the House of Lords and if they did they did never did anything more notable than vote a few times and fall asleep on the benches. Not even Peerage directories have separate articles on each individual peer! They have separate articles for each peerage like we the one we have at Viscount of Arbuthnott- we should regard the peerage as the automatically notable entity, not every Viscount of Arbuthnott- numbers 1-16! We are not falling into the trap that the article is currently short- extensive efforts have been made to find anything of note on this person- but there is nothing to be found. No important information is lost if this article is merged with Viscount of Arbuthnott. If something substantial is ever found to indicate personal notability the article can be unmerged again. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 16:22, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but are you trying to convince me to change my opinion from merge to, erm, merge? Also, I doubt "extensive efforts" stretch beyond Google, which has a definite modern bias and is rather sketchy on semi-obscure topics from the 1700s where other sources are likely to be much superior -Halo 17:00, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually Google Books has a vast array of older books (including books on peerages - which was where the info from the Scots Peerage was found for this one). I have my own collection of peerage books and they don't say anything notable about him either. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 17:11, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete As Per padraig3uk, --Domer48 17:24, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep I'm fine with all British pers beng automatically notable. Johnbod 23:46, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * This person is not encycopedically notable in their own right. A peerage in itself is of encyclopedical merit but every person who ever held it is not unless they did something that would qualify anyone else to have a separate encyclopedia article. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 00:31, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: I'm amazed the nominator doesn't know the simple difference between England and Scotland... Anyway, keep as notable... as in we have gour reliable sources. Thanks/wangi 00:02, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, please don't cast aspersions on the nominator- I know perfectly well the difference, I just didn't at cotton onto the fact at first that he was a peer in the Scottish peerage rather than the UK or English peerage. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 00:31, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Is it usual for the nominator to comment on any !vote which disagrees his perspective? - Kittybrewster   (talk) 06:09, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Response It's not so common, but there's nothing wrong with it. Likewise those who disagree with him are welcome to argue against what he writes in response to them. Indeed, I think this to-ing and fro-ing is a good thing, as long as it's polite. (It can be a bit exhausting for all concerned, however.) -- Hoary 08:30, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * As has been pointed out to me it is not a vote and it is up to the closing admin to judge whether the arguments made against the nominator's proposal are valid. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 13:14, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * There is an unstated agenda here . - Kittybrewster  (talk) 13:55, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry what is my unstated agenda- that I have an aversion to extensively detailing aristocratic families in thousands of non notable stub articles that can easily be merged into the main articles for the relevant title (i.e. exactly what I said in my nomination at the top!?). Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 15:33, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete I'm glad to infer (vaguely) that he wasn't as rapacious as he could have been, sad to be reminded that this was regarded as an eccentricity. Seems utterly unremarkable otherwise. I can't see any achievement or notability. -- Hoary 00:34, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep- verifiable and referenced bio. Thunderwing 08:47, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that everything that can be verified and referenced should have an encyclopedia article- amazing! Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 13:03, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * No- I am saying a verifiable and referenced bio on a Scottish nobleman and peer should be kept. Thunderwing 15:44, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Is a Scottish nobleman and peer more notable than a Scottish commoner, or a Bulgarian nobleman, or whatever; and if so, how? -- Hoary 15:57, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily, however I am basing my !vote on the article in question and I can see an article about a Scottish peer, which can be verified and referenced to various sources. I would say it is not a very good article- but that is not a reason for deletion. Thunderwing 16:05, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not a very good article because there is nothing notable about that person independent of the Viscount of Arbuthnott title which can accomodate the very little of note that there is to say about him. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 16:29, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep Eminently notable, SqueakBox 18:26, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment What for? Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 19:03, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: is there a very clear Wikipedia republican policy which states categorically that Wikipedia only recognises a meritocracy? David Lauder 20:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Not as far as I know. But merit isn't needed for an article on WP. Instead, it's something like a more than trivial impact (not necessarily positive) or achievement (none of which has to be much celebrated, merely verifiable), unusual merit, or more than just passing newsworthiness, or some combination thereof. I don't see it here. What am I missing? -- Hoary 04:10, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * e.g. Somebody like Jackiey Budden. - Kittybrewster  (talk) 06:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Even by WP's standards, that article's a (presumably unintended) joke. I'm too busy/lazy to send it to AfD myself, but anybody who does can count on me for a "delete" vote. So, other crap exists. And to rephrase my question, am I missing anything notable about this Arbuthnot(t), aside from his commendable lack of rapacity? -- Hoary 07:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Exactly! And the countless other nonentities on WP. This Viscount (notable in itself) was regarded as notable in his time for holding down his tenant's rents (and even forgoing them) at a time of great agricultural hardship. In itself this was notable, given the period. You'd think all the anti-establisment types would have been cheering from the rooftops. Instead, they don't care what aristos ever did, they just hate them. Its ike the French Revolution all over again. David Lauder 07:00, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Cool it, David. This fellow was an aristo; he actually seems to have achieved quite a bit. Perhaps a condition for this was the prospect of becoming king; he's highly atypical of aristos. Right then, try this one. The article is terribly inadequate but manages to explain how he was remarkable. As does this. Actually I'm all in favor of eccentric aristocrats, if the eccentricity is benevolent or neutral -- though IMHO both articles overemphasize the eccentricity and undervalue the achievements. Now, for Arbuthnot(t), a single sentence found in one book emphasizes benevolence and eccentricity. If he had been remarkable, would there not be more, even if only grumbling from contemporaneous aristos about how this soft-headed Arbuthnot(t) fellow was dangerously encouraging the peasantry to think above its station? -- Hoary 07:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete - As others have noted, being born into nobility does not establish notability in itself—the subject must have actually done something notable too. I see nothing of the sort. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 09:43, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Its ike the French Revolution all over again. There is a world outside your window, you should get some air? The subject has done nothing, so what makes him notable, nothing! Regard --Domer48 12:37, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - This little revolution of yours is monstrous intolerable - I say keep the article - The Scarlet Pimpernel  13:48, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - User:Princess Tiswas, why are you signing your posts as 'The Scarlet Pimpernel'.--padraig3uk 14:11, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The Scarlet Pimpernel obviously sabotaged her account that wretched aristo loving swine. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 14:41, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed - My account must have been hijacked by that dandiest of fops, Sir Percy Blakeny (the Anthony Andrews one, that is) - Tiswas (t) 09:20, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 *  Weak delete or Merge into Viscount of Arbuthnott. This is a Scottish Peer after the Act of Union 1707; he was not a representative peer. Therefore he was not a member of the legislature; not even, like many English Peers, a member who never attends. I see no other claim to notability. (If Complete Peerage convinces me otherwise, I will comment on this !vote.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Complete Peerage has no honors or offices; and the only personalizing is the fact he was his cousin's agent before succeeding, copied from Scots Peerage. Scots Peerage adds only the vague reports of eccentricity quoted. If actual examples were quotable, I might find this interesting enough to keep; as it is, why? This is an unexpandable stub. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:59, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * A peer would have been quite notable in his community and in Scotland, even if not a member of the House of Lords. Notability doesn't fade with time, as I understand the policy. A peer from this era was among the most notable individuals alive at the time. This is why we have some record of their existence (find the village blacksmith's name). Removing these pages makes WP less useful. In any event, a WP policy for peers is needed. JJL 17:11, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I think you and other people are totally misunderstanding the argument. I am not arguing that the information be removed from Wikipedia and I am arguing that we merge it to Viscount of Arbuthnott. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 17:35, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I understood that. I'm arguing that "notability doesn't fade with time" means that as he was notable back then he retains that notability now, and hence deserves his own article. I say that removing the pages makes WP less useful for a different reason--because of the fact that if 10 of those are sufficiently notable and the other six aren't, the page listing all of them will be pretty messy if it has a one-line link for the ten and a paragraph or two for the other six. JJL 00:57, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry but not everyone notable in whatever way ever is encyclopedic material. And the argument that the article should stay otherwise it would make the Viscount of Arbuthnott page "messy" is just ridiculous. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 02:07, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletions.   -- --  pb30 < talk > 21:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep: If the data is to be kept, the question of whether it should be consolidated into a single article or spread out amongst a number of sub-articles is a matter of page layout. Barring technical concerns, this is a question I think best left to the writers of the article.  I don't see short articles as a problem.  Single sentence articles appear in the Britannica.        The pressing question for any article on Wikipedia is whether the facts that it presents can be verified with a sound source and whether those facts can be presented in a nonpartisan tone.  Well-referenced polemics or promotional pieces are still polemics or advertising, not encyclopedia articles.  In this article, little is written, but that little is referenced.        Folks wishing to spend their days detailing the peerage of the UK results in Wikipedia having a particularly thorough coverage in a topic I have little interest in.  But it harms none and may be of some small value.  The punishment for lack of notability is lack of readers. &mdash; VulcanOfWalden 05:20, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete or merge to the Viscount Arbuthnot article. No proof has been shown that the Viscount did or even could have sat in the House of Lords. This obviously means that he fails the politician criteria pf the notability policy and as there is nothing else to claim that he passes WP:N then we are left with nothing to defend.--Vintagekits 05:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletions.   -- Kittybrewster   (talk) 06:15, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Question: How was this Arbuthnot(t) chap related to politics? -- Hoary 06:21, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. As the person who considered this page writing and for numerous reasons stated above, I naturally am in favour of keeping. - Kittybrewster  (talk) 06:15, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep- All peers are automatically notable Astrotrain 09:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * How's that? -- Hoary 09:31, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment: A search of Amazon for viscount arbuthnott brings up, amongst other things, a book with the title The History of Parliament: the House of Commons, 1690-1715 that contains a quotation from a letter by the 5th Viscount Arbuthnott with the source for the letter being the NLS (National Library of Scotland).  Where you can find one letter you can probably find more.        Checking the website of the National Library of Scotland, there's a pair of entries for "Arbuthnott, John Arbuthnott, Viscount, 1702 or 3-1791--Trials, litigation, etc.--Early works to 1800".  One has a title of "The Right Honourable John Lord Viscount of Arbuthnot, and others, creditors of William Morison ... [brace] appellants. John Spotswood, of Spotswood, Esq; - respondent. : The appellant’s case..", with a note mentioning "On docket title: To be heard at the bar of the House of Lords, on Monday the 21st day of April 1740. Signed at end: Will. Hamilton. Alex Lockhart."  The other entry refers to the same case, with a title of "The Right Honourable John Lord Viscount of Arbuthnot, the Honourable Francis Charteris of Ampsfeild Esq; and other creditors of William Morison Esq; [brace] appellants. John Spottiswood, Esq; respondent. : The respondent’s case.." and a note of: "On docket title: To be heard at the bar of the House of Lords, on Monday the 21st day of April 1740. Signed at end: Ch. Areskine. W. Murray."        Whether Arbuthnott is notable depends upon whether you consider his position as 6th Viscount of Arbuthnott to be notable.  Odds are, there's more information to be had, but finding it involves searches through dusty archives rather than Google. &mdash; VulcanOfWalden 10:32, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - court proceedings aren't really a demonstration of notability, are they? It is verifiable, certaintly - but what is notable about being owed money? - Tiswas (t) 10:45, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I have plenty of similar entries for my non notable ancestors. They are probably just in relation to the rent problems as described in the article- nothing that would make a person notable. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 10:47, 13 June 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.