Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rupert Victor John Carington, 5th Baron Carrington


 * 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   no consensus. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:30, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Rupert Victor John Carington, 5th Baron Carrington

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable individual. Having a peerage is enough of a claim to notability to pass A7, but not enough to pass WP:BIO unless they have done other things with their life. While members of the House of Lords are Members of Parliament, the idea that MPs are automatically notable applies to commons members, since those people have done something with their life other than get born. Ironholds (talk) 19:59, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm no expert on British politics, but is there anything in the article that says he was a member of the House of Lords? Was there a "Baron Carrington seat"?  If not, I'd say delete.  Mandsford (talk) 21:15, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep If the nominator believes existing notability guidelines should be changed, Afd is not the place to do it. Edward321 (talk) 22:52, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Serving in the House of Lords auto-qualifies per current notability guidelines. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 01:39, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Question: Did he sit in the House of Lords? Do we have evidence that he actually served as a member of that house, or only that he may have?  Was that barony even granted a seat?  --Jayron32. talk . contribs  02:40, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, the 6th Baron Carrington now occupies the inherited membership. Members of the House of Lords, however this changed in 1999 but the entire process is a bit too complicated to put in a couple of lines. House of Lords Act 1999 is a starting point. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 03:59, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The 6th Baron Carrington was far, far more notable as he served in Thatcher's cabinet. I do suspect that a revision of this guideline is in order (if only a minor one) to deal with members of hereditary legislatures.Tyrenon (talk) 05:24, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Member of a national legislature indicates he is clearly notable, based on Spaceman7Spiff's explanation. --Jayron32. talk . contribs  04:13, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. The problem with hereditary legislative houses is that while one may have notionally had a seat, whether one ever actually took it (as in whether one ever actually sat in the seat and voted) is often a fair question.  There's another debate on this topic up tonight, but I lean against the automatic inclusion of hereditary members of the House of Lords on the basis of the inherited title alone.Tyrenon (talk) 05:22, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

You can use the same argument for life peers but if they attend is not the point here. They are members of the legislature on a national level and therefore relevant for wikipedia as it is clearly stated in our guidelines. If some people think they should do it otherwise out of a habit they are violating these rules.Max Mux (talk) 07:57, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

A very clear keepMax Mux (talk) 07:58, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Max, could you ensure that you don't just vote, but actually provide a rationale? Thanks. ╟─ Treasury Tag ► ballotbox ─╢ 08:18, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per Tyrenon, basically. There's a severe lack of reliable sources (the only one listed is self-published) to establish any sort of genuine notability. ╟─ Treasury Tag ► ballotbox ─╢ 08:18, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete not notable peer.  Phoe  talk  00:43, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, per nominator. Any material on him can be added to the Baron Carrington article. Tryde (talk) 17:34, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Same as the others: it's not the election but the role in national government that makes members of a legislature notable. DGG (talk) 02:37, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * What role? People who played no part in the government and never turned up to legislative sittings have a role now? Ironholds (talk) 11:06, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

You don't get that it's not the point at all!Max Mux (talk) 18:43, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, it was the point of his argument. Ironholds (talk) 18:46, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

But I meant that that's not the important thing here. A king for example who never rules himself is still notable. A high judge is notable if he has done important things before or not.Max Mux (talk) 08:29, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * A king or "high judge" has done something to achieve that position. What has the great-great-grandson of a notable person done that is so notable? Ironholds (talk) 13:12, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Pardon, but how can someone be so dumb? 1) A king has done nothing to archieve this position. 2) A member of legislature is according to wikipedia guidelines notable. It is not importan HOW someone get to that position (well personally I'm generally for completely elected parliaments but that's not the point). When someone belongs to a parliament he has a relevant position and is therefore relevant himself.pS: Do you think most of the life peers attend regurarly?Max Mux (talk) 13:29, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Please take the hint given by me and two or three others - avoid personal attacks, or you'll be blocked. A life peer has done something notable to become a life peer - you don't just give a peerage to Mick the Bricklayer from number 32. You're saying "X is a guideline, therefore it doesn't matter why the guideline is there or if it should be changed - its a guideline". That isn't how policy and guidelines work on Wikipedia - consensus determines what guidelines and policies are. Ironholds (talk) 18:49, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

We shouldn't change it only becaus we are against the sitting of hereditary peers. And not every important person has endless media reports.If we delete anyone we don't like there would be enough people here.Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Mobutu, Göring, Mugabe, Gaddafi...Max Mux (talk) 06:41, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * We're not debating deleting people we don't like, and we aren't saying we want to get rid of hereditary peers on en-wiki because we don't like them - read the proposal. Actually, every important person does have reports in the media or in other reliable sources - it's how, on Wikipedia, we determine their importance. Notability is based on verifiability, verifiability is based on references. Ironholds (talk) 06:52, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Then look again at the links. They show that he was a member and therefore notable!Max Mux (talk) 15:08, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * We know he's a member. Nobody is questioning that he's a member, we're questioning whether or not WP:POLITICIAN is meant to be applied in that way. From the wider discussion I've been having I can see several who believe the current policy is being misapplied and many more who believe the policy should not cover hereditary ponces. Ironholds (talk) 16:47, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

It should not be judged with prejudices. I'm against the monarchy but that don't mean I try to delete the article of the queen!Max Mux (talk) 17:50, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * How is it being judged with prejudice? Ironholds (talk) 04:30, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

By you.Max Mux (talk) 06:07, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That didn't answer the question. How am I judging it with prejudice? Do you think I'm doing it because I don't like hereditary peers? What is your evidence for that being my motivation for doing this? I don't like hereditary peers having seats in the Lords, but targeting peers who have been dead for sixty years and denying them a Wikipedia article is an odd way to go about changing it, don't you think? People who feel fervently enough about something to do something about it normally go out onto the streets, not try and have an article deleted. Please stop accusing me of things with no evidence to back up those accusations. Ironholds (talk) 06:35, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

But how do you explain your behavior ? It certainly looks that way!Max Mux (talk) 12:43, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Because I nominate something, I'm biased against it? No. If my normal attitude to articles had been swayed as a result of me dealing with this, that would be biased. Take a look at my AfD record, see what I normally do with unsourced articles about unimportant twonks, and then apologise. Ironholds (talk) 17:16, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

You better should apologize yourself.Max Mux (talk) 17:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Why? Have I insulted you? No. I've not made any personal comments despite being accused of being "dump" "stupid", "sick", "mad", having a "bullshit" opinion, talking nonsense and destroying wikipedia, I've kept my head attached firmly to my shoulders. I've warned you repeatedly against making unfounded personal accusations, and yet you persist. Find me something I've done that I need to apologise for, and I'll do so. You, on the other hand, are edging closer and closer to a block. Ironholds (talk) 19:00, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

You have spoken about "unimportant twonks".Max Mux (talk) 21:02, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * ...yes, referring to the peers, unimportant being the operative word. Unlike me being called sick, stupid, dumb, mad and nuts, my comment wasn't directed at you and thus unlike yours wasn't a personal attack. Ironholds (talk) 12:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Evidently notable. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:17, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Again, looking for something notable beyond "because he is".  I need to see something he has done, or represents, beyond just existance.King Pickle (talk) 00:31, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Keep He was a member of the legislatureMax Mux (talk) 05:47, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Records you yourself provide show he never even spoke. You've been told not to use the peerage, and I'm not sure why you've added quasi-inlines all over the place. Ironholds (talk) 06:39, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

It is not important if he have spoken or not. What do you mean with "qusi-inlines"? Max Mux (talk) 09:37, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * the little [1] [2] you've put in even though they're not linked to any references. Ironholds (talk) 10:14, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I will see after that later. I'm looking forward to hearing from the House of Lords.10:27, 10 June 2009 (UTC)Max Mux (talk)
 * You've emailed them? About what? Ironholds (talk) 10:54, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

About the peers peers, who were mebers. For example Carington and Herschell.Max Mux (talk) 12:33, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Requesting additional information? Information has to be verifiable, so findeable. If the information is "here's a link to a good source", fine. If it is "here's an email full of info" it wont be useable. Ironholds (talk) 12:54, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I added a brief biography of him at the Baron Carrington article. Tryde (talk) 05:33, 10 June 2009 (UTC) By this I was trying to show how articles on non-notable peers can be merged into the article on the peerage they held. Tryde (talk) 13:36, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

He IS notable!Max Mux (talk) 15:58, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That's not helpful. ╟─ Treasury Tag ► Africa, Asia and the UN ─╢ 16:34, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

But some of the people here seem to be blind.Max Mux (talk) 17:53, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I've told you before about making personal comments repeatedly. This is your final warning - keep comments about editing only, or I'll report you and have you blocked. You've been told repeatedly that your comments aren't helpful, yet you keep making them - that is editorial blindness. Ironholds (talk) 17:55, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Saying people are blind is, as Ironholds points out, not nice, and basically incorrect. But even if it were OK, you're still not being helpful. What you're doing is like telling a blind person, "There's a beautiful building in front of you." You should describe it, give details, give input, illuminate people.
 * Or just keep quiet. But making unsubstantiated statements like that will always be unconstructive. ╟─ Treasury Tag ► sundries ─╢ 21:06, 10 June 2009 (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.