Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter George Wellesley Graves, 8th Baron Graves


 * 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 of the debate was the result of this debate was Keep. Nomination withdrawn.Gateman1997 00:53, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Peter George Wellesley Graves, 8th Baron Graves
NN, D. ComCat 03:03, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Nomination withdrawn. This article had no substance of note when originally nominated,  now it does.  ComCat 05:07, 10 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep and Expand. Members of the Nobility are inherently notable.--Nicodemus75 04:30, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep and expand given that he is a baron. BTW, Comcat could you please provide an explanation of your nomination. Capitalistroadster 05:36, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * See Requests for comment/ComCat. Uncle G 13:33, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Nobility, and I believe that means that he was in the House of Lords . Utterly pointless to write "NN D" without giving any reason why a baron should be not notable. Sjakkalle (Check!)  09:45, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Apparently not in the British House of Lords since Graves is an Irish district. Still, I think barons are inherently notable. Sjakkalle (Check!)  14:45, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that that makes any difference. Southern Irish people retained the right to vote in the UK, and something similar may well have applied to all Irish peers. British and Irish peerages were never territorial, and peers often had no real connection with the locality from which their title was derived. CalJW 01:22, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment Am I right in assuming that "nobility are inherently notable" is a Wiki standard? If so, I'd like it called into debate.  Here in France, for example, every tenth person is Comte de This or That. That would mean we need about 10,000,000 entries... I exaggerate of course, but are we really to include every son of every son of a Lord or Baron?  As the answer is probably no, then where do we draw the line?  Marcus22 10:42, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Younger sons are not peers in the UK. There have only ever been a few hundred peers at a time. One is either a peer or not. The distinction is very clear cut and utterly different from the situation in France. CalJW 13:37, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I have an issue with the idea that the holder of every noble title is inherently notable. The title may be worthy of an entry, e.g. Graves Baronetcy under which individuals can be listed, but this kind of entry simply justifies a compendium of minor notability for no other reason than the existence of the title itself.  Where should the importance be placed?   Delete Dottore So 11:56, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * In general, any article on someone who has held a seat in national parliament winds up being kept (see WP:BIO, even though I realize that this person is dead now). Being a baron in Britain places you in the House of Lords, the upper house of the British parliament. Sjakkalle (Check!)  12:13, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Also a Baron is not exactly a Baronet.--Nicodemus75 12:20, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * yes I meant barony, not baronetcy. Also, let me stress in the strongest possible terms that I don't see this in inclusionist/exclusionist terms, since I wholeheartedly agree that the holder of the title has an inherent notability; however, I believe it a sustainable assertion that that same notability accrues as a condition of the title which makes the more encyclopedic subject the title, not the individuals, except, obviously, in those cases where the individual has obtained some degree of notability outside that granted by the title in the first place.  Such, for example, would be the case of [his successor] who performed the singular feat of getting married ten years before he was born according to his WP entry.  Now that is notable!  Unless the article can point to something that, sui generis, indicates this fellow deserves a separate article, imo it might be better practice to accumulate such lists of names under the title.  After all, sitting in the house of lords was an inherited right, by virtue of ennoblement (although I believe that Irish peers lost this by the 20th century).  That as I see it could in itself suggest that the encycopedic importance resides with the title.
 * Whilst I will not vote Delete on this, I feel Dottore So has the right approach: often it is only the title which is noteworthy and not necessarily the holder. In this particular case, the 8th Baron could just be listed on the Graves title page unless he has other claims to fame to warrant a page of his own.  Also, re the house of Lords: being a peer no longer entitles one to a seat there.  It is now a house of appointed representatives the vast majority of whom are only life-Peers.  Though this would not have been the case with this particular Baron, it perhaps needs bearing in mind in future. Marcus22 15:46, 7 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep All members of the House of Lords. CalJW 13:37, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * N, K. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 15:01, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. No valid reason for nomination given, this person is verifiable. Trollderella 19:39, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

*Delete. Unless he is notable in is own right, and not by virtue of simply being a Baron, he should rate no more than a listing in an article about the Barony. - Dalbury (talk) 00:04, 8 November 2005 (UTC) - vote withdrawn - Dalbury (talk) 02:07, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, verifiable, but completely non-notable noble. I wholly reject the assertion that he is notable because he was a baron.  What did he do that was notable?  Be born?  Inherit a lovely estate?  Die?  If he had been in the House of Lords this would be a hands down Keep, but as it stands, the 8th Baron Graves is just as non-notable as the next chap; he just had the luxury of a barony to ease his way though life.--Isotope23 20:16, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * CommentWithdrawing my Delete per CalJW's citation... at least Sir Graves did something with his life.--Isotope23 03:53, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Major new information Apparently the family had fallen on hard times, as he worked as an actor, appearing in 32 films, including at least 2 where he was first billed. imdb profile CalJW 01:30, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * keep - I agree about the notability of British peers. Baronets too, FWIW.  --  Geo Swan 01:56, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep in light of the new info about his movie career I'm changing my vote to keep. However I stand by the assertion that nobles are not inherently notable as we're not living the the pre-19th century anymore. "Nobility" is a quaint vestige of the old world... nothing more and current "nobility" are no more inherently notable then the average person. Gateman1997 02:03, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep A little googling shows that a "Vanessa Lee", nee Winifred Ruby Moule, born 1920, who appeared in at least one London stage production, was married to Baron Peter Graves. I accept that an acting career increases the Baron's notability. - Dalbury (talk) 02:07, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep barons with additionally notable wives! :) Jacqui  ★ 06:08, 8 November 2005 (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.