Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Chief Barons of the Irish Exchequer


 * 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The result was   Withdrawn by nominator. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 13:41, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

List of Chief Barons of the Irish Exchequer

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This is unimportant list of non-notable people. Already dicussed at the other article about this subject. Themane2 (talk) 20:38, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Can you indicate the location of the discussion you referred to so that we can understand your case? --AJHingston (talk) 21:10, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I digress. Firstly its a list so its adifferent barometre, secondly it is an important position and the history of it is relevant to researchers (after all th e point of an encyclopeadia)Lihaas (talk) 21:04, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chief_Baron_of_the_Exchequer --Themane2 (talk) 00:34, 13 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment - no afd tag on page. --Anthem of joy (talk) 21:14, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep looks fine to me and well referenced. Just the type of list to see in a reference work. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:09, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep: Say what? A list with over thirty bluelinks one of "non-notable" people?  My, that's a rather startling assertion; has the nom filed AfDs on all those bluelinks?  And, by the bye, we're talking a list of (effectively), the chief justices of the Irish national tax court for a few centuries.  The nom claims to have discussed this at the "other article," whichever that might be, but a review of his contributions list shows no such discussion.   Ravenswing  08:47, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep as notable. I had seen the discussion at the article on the English office and do not understand the relevance either. As pointed out above, many of the office holders listed already have their own articles and others will doubtless be created in time. But as for the notability of the office itself, it is difficult to fit its origins into our modern understanding of government in the west. It was a sort of hybrid between an arm of government and high judicial appointment and existed to ensure the proper administration and enforcement of the law in relation to national (crown) taxation and evolved over time. An equivalent office today at national level would be regarded as notable. I too would hope to find this list in Wikipedia. --AJHingston (talk) 10:32, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment The deletion request by me has been pulled.--Themane2 (talk) 11:37, 13 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.