Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John St John, 12th Baron St John of Bletso


 * 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. Stifle (talk) 14:43, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

John St John, 12th Baron St John of Bletso

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Fails both WP:GNG and WP:BIO and all but one source is just birth registers and a list of british peers. Hyperwave11 (talk) 06:32, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Hyperwave11 (talk) 06:32, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Hyperwave11 (talk) 06:32, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. Agricolae (talk) 07:31, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Yes, pulling the material from WP:PRIMARY baptismal registers is WP:OR, but what the nom has described as 'just . . . a list of British peers', is not just that. That source, Cokayne, gives the subject a dedicated mini-biography, including birth, education, succession, marriage details (including the fortune his wife brought to the marriage), death, burial, and probate details. Whether this amounts to 'significant coverage' is, I guess, subject to how one interprets 'significant', but it is not 'just a list'.  Indeed, the 'one' source implicit in the 'all but one' comment above was a dead web page that drew all of its information from Cokayne, almost all of it verbatim in violation of copyright, and I have now substituted those cites with Cokayne. Agricolae (talk) 07:30, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. Clearly passes WP:POLITICIAN as a member of the House of Lords. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:52, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:52, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Dubious -- Cockayne is RS. This is now old enough for copyright probably not to be an issue.  The use of Primary sources is sometimes appropriate.  Yes, all peers were members of the House of Lords, but that does not mean that they were active as politicians.  We do not have articles on every peer, but if not kept, this should be redirected to the article on the title, not deleted out of hand.  Peterkingiron (talk) 18:08, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, the copyright issue was one of citing a copyright-violating (and dead) web page. As a British web page it would be subject to UK copyright law, 'life+70', and with the sole attributed editor of the volume not shuffling off until 1969, its not even close to UK public domain (nor, as a 1949 publication, in the US if they renewed). Anyhow, the copyright status is rather moot, when the point is we should be citing the original published source and not some dead self-published web page that copied verbatim its text, whether still under copyright or not. Agricolae (talk) 18:40, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Note that WP:POLITICIAN says that "Politicians and judges who have held international, national, or (for countries with federal or similar systems of government) state/province–wide office, or have been members of legislative bodies at those levels" are notable. He was, whether he was "active" or not. We may not yet have articles on every peer (although we do on most and Wikipedia is a work in progress), but every peer who was entitled to sit in the House of Lords has a right to one. I don't recall any such article ever being deleted. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:29, 18 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep. All members of the House of Lords are automatically notable. Also, I added this reference, which may be derived in part from the Wikipedia article or another reference that already appears in the article. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:15, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I would suggest that this citation provides nothing new and shouldn't used as an independnent source - it either derives from Cokayne or even from Wikipedia itself. That said, I have now added a truly independent source, Collins' Peerage (published during the lifetime of his children). Agricolae (talk) 16:49, 18 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep: Automatically conferred notability via WP:NPOL as a member of the House of Lords. Curbon7 (talk) 10:28, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I would also note that I have noticed the nominator seems to be having trouble with understanding WP:NPOL, as I have already had to revert one of their bad draftifications. Curbon7 (talk) 10:29, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I am going to go on record as objecting to this concept of 'automatic notability' for peers, when the policy only says they are "presumed to be notable". That may shift the burden from demonstrating someone is notable to demonstrating they are not, but it does not convey anything automatically. What is implicit in the one-legislature-fits-all guideline is the presumption that anyone gaining such positions would receive coverage of events leading to their selection (appointment or election). With the House of Lords, the only events involved are their birth and someone else's death, and hence the presumption of coverage is much weaker. An infant who inherited their title and then died during a period no parliament sat may fall short of notability in spite of the blanket presumption. Agricolae (talk) 16:48, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I would point out that we have even held that members of rubber-stamping "legislatures" in totalitarian countries are notable by virtue of their membership per WP:POLITICIAN, so I think it's entirely reasonable to assume automatic notability for members of a legislature which actually has some sort of influence over legislation. Also note that someone who died before taking up their seat is not actually a member of the House of Lords per se! Lord St John, however, held the title for ten years, so undoubtedly did take up his seat. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:35, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Again, this claim to 'automatic' notability relies on flawed reading of the guidelines' "presumed". The difference is subtle but important - 'they are FOO so they are automatically notable' is an argument completely at odds with WP:NOTINHERITED, while 'they are FOO so it can be presumed there is enough sourcing for them to be notable' is not. The outcome would almost always end up being the same, but that 'almost' is noteworthy. Agricolae (talk) 21:33, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh, and above you say "every peer who was entitled to sit . . . has a right to a page". Arguing that a Wikipedia page is anyone's right is new to me - where is that from, Thomas Paine? Anyhow, it also contradicts what you just said, that someone entitled to sit but having no opportunity isn't even to be considered a member of the Hosue of Lords (and by implication is not covered by WP:POLITICIAN's presumption of notability - doesn't have a 'right to a page'). I bring this up not to highlight the inconsistency but to indicate that even when stated as an absolute, there is still room for interpretation, so we shouldn't pretend a guideline not stated as an absolute draws a black and white distinction. Agricolae (talk) 21:53, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * You can split hairs for as long as you want, but the fact is that WP:POLITICIAN has always been taken to mean that any member of a national or sub-national legislature is worthy of an article. Always. That's the clear precedent and consensus here at AfD, whether or not you happen to agree with it or want to argue semantics. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:10, 24 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep What the nonsense Afd? A member of the House of Lords is clearly notable per WP:NPOL. How much do you need? Clearly WP:IDONTLIKE here. See another AfD outcome Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vicary Gibbs, 6th Baron Aldenham (2nd nomination).VocalIndia (talk) 12:44, 24 November 2021 (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.