Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Torrens-Spence


 * 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. --Core desat 02:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Michael Torrens-Spence

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Captain is not a notable rank and there is nothing else in the article which shows that this person notability. Vintagekits 13:54, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. In a country that is notoriously stingy with its military decorations, being decorated three times is notable. As far as I'm concerned, any British person who has received three military decorations is inherently notable for their actions. In addition, he later became a Lord-Lieutenant, which also makes him notable. -- Necrothesp 15:07, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment, Everything you said is pure WP:OR and the last thing the British establishment is "stingy with its military decorations" - infact they hand them out like confetti, also the decoration he got wernt exactly the Victoria Cross. Finally, he was not the Lord Lieutenant he was the Lord Lieutenant of Armagh which is about as notable as being the man with the biggest toe in Ballymena!--Vintagekits 15:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually there is one Lord Liuetenant per county, he was the Lord Liutenant in Armagh.--Counter-revolutionary 22:25, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * As, Lord Lieutenant, he takes precedence over all other officials in that county. Astrotrain 16:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Go on give us all a laugh - tell us what he does.--Vintagekits 17:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. If you had bothered to read my post before you responded in such an unpleasant manner you would notice that I said "as far as I'm concerned". In what way is expressing an opinion in an AfD original research, any more than "Captain is not a notable rank and there is nothing else in the article which shows that this person notability"? Try reading the policy before you sling links to it around. "They hand them out like confetti" is utter insulting drivel and merely shows your complete ignorance of the British military and honours system. The DSO was at the time the next highest combat decoration after the VC. I said he was a Lord-Lieutenant, not the Lord-Lieutenant - I am fully aware what a Lord-Lieutenant is thank you very much. Finally, (particularly re your comment on my talk page) try a little civility. -- Necrothesp 16:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. Did I say you said he was the LL, I was simply pointing out that he wasnt because by linking directly to the LL article you could have given the impression that he was.--Vintagekits 17:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep- All Lord Lieutenants are notable as they hold a position of honour and represent the monarch in their county. Astrotrain 16:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment, please remind the readers what power that ceremonial position of Lord Lieutenant of Armagh confers!?--Vintagekits 16:15, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Power has nothing whatsoever to do with notability. Notability is just that - whether someone's been noted by reliable third-party sources. It has nothing to do with "power". There are many, many notable people who have/had no power whatsoever. -- Charlene 20:31, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Weak keep One newspaper article is presented with a detailed writeup of his career and accomplishments, a refreshing change from articles only supported by directory listings of peerage genealogy. There appears to be another source, but unclear what it is purported to show. A nice military career is described in some detail. Better than a "born, got married, inherited title, died, preceded by, succeeded by" article. Possibly one sided and POV, since a good encyclopediarticle might include criticisms. Smacks of a memorial article. Edison 16:53, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep, anything else he might have done, being Lord Lieutenant of Armagh is notability, pure and simple. Corvus cornix 17:38, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep as a successful attempt to improve the standard of these articles--& glad that we have at least established that LL are notable. DGG 21:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - notable for mililtary career and Lord Lieutenancy, and the sources are there.--Counter-revolutionary 22:25, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - there was also no attempt to discuss notability before nominating for AfD.--Counter-revolutionary 22:44, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment !voted Keep above because he did something signiicant in his life and it was adequately referenced, not because he was granted a title some claim to be ceremonial. Inherent notability of Lords Lieutenant is not really established by this AFD, but if one is otherwise notable he should certainly have an article. Edison 23:13, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Some say the Queen is ceremonial. Ceremony has nothign to do with notability; whether it is, or isn't. --Counter-revolutionary 23:14, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment It is quite a leap to compare this LL title with the Queen, who is a constitutional monarch, and a head of state. It seems a bit of a Straw man argument and still does not establish that this afd shows a particular title makes the holder inherently notable. Edison 19:47, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep - notable both for military career and Lord Lieutenancy. Does it matter that he was "only" a Captain? For example, nobody suggests that Winston Churchill's page be deleted because he was not of high military rank. All Lords Lieutenant are notable by definition, surely. TamB


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletions.  -- Carom 23:54, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Well sourced and notable for the military decorations, (openly contemptuous though Vintagekits may be of those who fought for our freedom not all Wikipedians share his disdain for such things), and for his rank as Lord Lieutenant. "During the Swordfish attack in Taranto harbour, he torpedoed one of Italy's newest and largest battleships, the Littorio, sinking her in shallow water. He was awarded the DSC for this action." If that's not enough to make him notable by Wikipedia guidelines then it's the guidelines that are wrong. Nick mallory 01:25, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't think it's contempt for "those who fought for our freedom"; it may be that an Irish Wikipedian may feel that a British functionary who served as a British government official in Ireland before independence is not notable solely by virtue of being British. If so, it's not a neutral point of view. -- Charlene 04:16, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. And who on earth said he was notable just for being British? He's notable for his achievements. What Vintagekits actually did was express contempt for the British honours system and by extension the British military and their courage, falsely (and insultingly) saying that military honours were handed out "like confetti" (thus implying that Torrens-Spence's honours were worthless and irrelevant). Can you really blame British editors for being unhappy about such an uncalled-for anti-British POV statement? In addition, note that Torrens-Spence was an official in Northern Ireland, which is still part of Britain, so Irish independence is irrelevant. -- Necrothesp 19:51, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - certainlyn notable. Peterkingiron 00:07, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Snowy Keep Nomination is so inaccurate that it leads one to question if nominator even read it.  Article subject was Captian of several different vessels, including an aircraft carrier.  Recieved multiple military decorations, as a pilot sank a battleship and crippled a cruiser.  Squadron commander, test pilot, part of naval staff.  Commandant of the Ulster Special Constabulary.  Commanded County Armagh Battalion as a Lieutenant Colonel. Lord Lieutenant of Armagh. High Sheriff of County Armagh.  (I could go on.) Edward321 21:54, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - maybe you should have read the article when it was nominated!--Vintagekits 22:00, 17 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.