Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sir George Dick-Lauder, 12th Baronet


 * 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. Although a lot of editors put forward a strong argument for a merge to Lauder Baronets (the precedent is that baronets, unlike peers, are not automatically notable), there wasn't sufficient consensus for the merge. The Keep !voters highlighted his distinguished military career and authorship as evidence of independent notability, an argument which was strong enough not to be discounted. WaltonOne 15:58, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Sir George Dick-Lauder, 12th Baronet

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

He was born. He went to school. He joined a club. He died. All of which we know because he and his family told us so. But there are no other sources. Guy (Help!) 22:59, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge to Lauder Baronets, as I did here with another non-notable Lauder Baronet, viz. Sir Andrew Dick-Lauder, 6th Baronet, and have today done to to Piers Lauder (see the AfD). I agree with the nominator's assessment of Sir George Dick-Lauder, 12th Baronet as non-notable, but I would oppose to simply deleting the article. The article on the baronetcy itself is clearly notable per WP:N (referenced in multiple sources), and demonstrates holders of the title played a significant roile through over a dozen generations. Per WP:PAPER, there is no need to constrain the length of Lauder Baronets, so I have gone ahead and merged, an action which does not require AfD approval. However, I have not replaced the article Piers Lauder with a redirect, because AFAICS that should not be done until this AfD is closed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:59, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep: a slightly jaundiced comment by the nominator I feel. This baronet is mentioned in Kellys, Who's Who, Debretts, Burkes, to name but four. (I am not of this family). This baronet had an exceptional military career, being second in command of both the famous Black Watch and King's African Rifles regiments (the latter at one time, possibly during Dick-Lauder's service, was the regiment of idi Amin. He is also a noted military author. All things considered on this page I would say the package makes him more notable than any of us. he satisfies, I feel, Wikis notability. David Lauder 18:58, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not passing an opinion on the worthiness of this page at all, as in the current political climeate here I will be accused of God know's what. However, what the hell has Idi Amin to do with this? I expect my cousin's next door neighbour's cat's previous owner once went to school with a man whose brother served with Idi Amin. In short so what? Giano 19:05, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * What I was trying to say was that this was a notable regiment and that Amin was one of the reasons. David Lauder 20:05, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep - notable soldier, author and founder of a club. He also held one of the highest honours of the British government. --Counter-revolutionary 19:22, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't see any mention of the honnour, perhaps you would like to add it? Giano 19:35, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I hope you're joking. He was a baronet. --Counter-revolutionary 19:43, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah! I see. I was thinking more of an honour personally bestowed on him by your Government, something that made him a man among men type of thing. Giano 19:48, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * But that doesn't meet the requirements of WP:BIO. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:26, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think there's any need to be that arbitrary. --Counter-revolutionary 19:33, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Counter-revolutionary, what exactly do you think is arbitrary about assessing a wikipedia article against the relevant guideline, in this case Notability (people) (aka WP:BIO)? It really isn't helpful for editors to ignore the guidelines. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:30, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment: Surely a package of things in a biography, which includes the fact that he was also a baronet, stands for something? It seems to me too much of a coincidence in, as Giano says, the present "political climate" that these Dick-Lauder baronets just happen to be selected for AfDs. I'm afraid I cannot detect any obvious 'good faith' here. David Lauder 20:05, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * For once I can understand your feelings at this difficult time. However think it really is just coincidence. The nominator is, as far as I'm aware, unconnected in any way with any of the parties involved with Requests for arbitration/The Troubles. I thought long and hard before commenting here but then decided I would have commented anyway so I might as well.  Hopefully the result will be the same as other similar baronet pages - a much improved page because at the moment I really cannot believe one of the "highest honours of the British government" is to make someone a dead 12th baronet - can you? Giano 20:53, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

This all comes down to the crucial point that wikipedia is a tertiary source, not a place of original research; we merely record existing knowledge, judging its significance by what others have judged significant enough to add a substantive piece of writing on them. Burkes etc includes people who would still be listed even if they had lived their lives in total seclusion, unknown except for date of burial, which is not the same thing at all; what matters is whether others judged them significant enough to make the choice to research and write something about them.--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:51, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak keep as he appears to be notable per WP:BIO, but more cites would help rescue this article. Bearian 23:01, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable army career. Biofoundationsoflanguage 13:02, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep subject was a good deal more than suggested in the nomination and independant sources exist, as mentioned by David Lauder. Edward321 04:13, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge per BHG's reasoning, unless his books were particularly notable. Let Soldiers Lust sounds a cracking read. Rockpock  e  t  19:38, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge: I'm tending towards merge. However, there is hope is there any more information about "Skull and Two Crystals", "Let Soldiers Lust", and "Our Man for Ganymede" were any nominated for the Booker for instance - reviews of them? publishers? plots? anything?. Did he win any medals while in the armed forces? Was he an amazing sexual athlete? Did he murder his granny or even his children's nanny? I'm afraid at the moment it is a case or expand, improve or merge. Giano 21:33, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep- notable baronet, in my opinion meets WP:BIO 21:37, 17 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Astrotrain (talk • contribs)
 * Keep Baronet, author, club founder and distinguished army career. Nick mallory 03:45, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge Unless anything comes forward to prove his notability besides the fact he's a baronet. SirFozzie 04:16, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - per Nick Mallory. - Kittybrewster  (talk) 09:51, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge Second-in-command does not bestow sufficient notability, nor does inherited baronetage. Possible notability as an author, but this needs to be established and referenced. At present it is not. Tyrenius 18:06, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: the books are listed in the four principal references cited. Second in command of two famous regiments is notable, I'm afraid. Ask anyone in the military. David Lauder 20:40, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I think this debate is silly now. It should be referred to the pending Arbcom case, let them decide if it meets the criteria or not - otherwise debates like this will just keep going around in circles for eternity. I for one am sick to death of argueing against logic with these people who seem to live in the Edwardian period. Giano 18:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe the pending Arbcom concerns the Troubles. --Counter-revolutionary 20:28, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes it does, but what does this page have to do with "The Troubles"? Giano 20:35, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Giano is right. This debate is silly, and the repeated refusal to acknowledge the guidelines is disruptive and tendentious. I support referring this to arbcom, and since the WP:BIO-deniers overlap so strongly with the group labelled "the Tories" in the Arbcom case on "The Troubles", I believe that it should be raised there. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment:You may think the debate is "silly" but the whole purpose of these AfD pages is for people to give their views. I don't wish to comment on those wishing to delete these pages as you have done with those who wish to keep, but some of us feel that he meets notability, with cited sources, and obviously some do not. I note that one '"delete" describes himself as a political activist. Funny, but I just can't see him being in the pro-baronet camp. It is interesting is it not, how these Lauder baronets are now being 'assessed'? David Lauder 08:59, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * David, I think that you have put your finger on the problem: that "some of us feel that he meets notability". This discussion should not be about how editors "feel", but about whether there is evidence that the article meets the criteria set out at WP:BIO or related guidelines such as WP:MIL. There have been plenty of requests for evidence, but the only evidence on offer is his listing in several directories, which as Iridescent points out is not useful. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:16, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * These are not telephone directories, as a couple of previous editors who have not yet appeared here compared them with. They are books containing potted biographies which are usually confirmed in one way or another. They are accepted, at least in Great Britain, as authoritative and few main libraries are without them. I commend them to you as excellent source materials, even if they are not as 'filled out' as the articles in the DNB. David Lauder 13:46, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * David, I think that you are missing the point here. I know that these books make useful sources, and in general they have a good reputation for accuracy. However, I think that you misunderstand the whole concept of notability on wikipedia: it's not about whether someone is included the subject in a list of notables, it's about whether enough authors have found the person significant enough to say "ahah! this person is interesting or significant", and then write a decent book or article on them. All that the directories do is to include a potted bio of them in a list of potted bios of people selected because of their parentage; depending on your POV that may be terribly useful, utterly useless, deeply fascinating or terminally boring, but none of those things are relevant to the concept of notability, which some editors persistently confuse with subjective notions of worthiness.


 * Merge I can't see anything notable about this individual. I am surprised it was even created. Galloglass 21:29, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge or very weak delete as it stands. For reasons everyone at XfD has no doubt already heard, I don't think baronets other than first creations are automatically notable (no legislative role, and title not awarded in recognition of their own achievements) and there doesn't seem to be anything in the military service to pass WP:MIL — but if we're going to have a Lauder Baronets page, I don't see any reason for him not to be on it. However, if someone can find evidence that the books are at all notable, he may warrant an article in his own right; I can't see anything on them, but since they're from Before Teh Internets they may have been significant, and the reviews etc just haven't found their way online. As I've said before, I don't think a mention in Burke's is legitimate for purposes of WP:N simply because it lists everyone; if he'd died at the age of three months, he'd still have an entry. I do agree very strongly with everyone above who says this is not the appropriate time to be having this discussion —  iride scent   (talk to me!)  00:55, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge Non-notable peeragecruft. Lauder Baronets pretty much covers it.  DEVS EX MACINA  pray 00:58, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge The only really likely avenue of notability here is his authorship of three books. WP:BIO suggests notability is established if these books "(c) have won significant critical attention" - I've trawled the web and can find no such attention, can the author provide this evidence? If not merge. --Joopercoopers 10:28, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I have also done some trawling, and found that the books are listed in the British library catalogue, but apart from library catalogues, the only google results I can find for "George Dick Lauder" (the name under which his books are published) are listings for secondhand copies ... with one exception, which is a terse mention in a list of "hidden gems" on a sci-fi website. As Iridescent points out, the books may have been reviewed more substantially before internet days, and if anyone has access to the archives of newspapers or the relevant journals, maybe something will turn up. If that sort of evidence appears at a later date, the article could of course be unmerged, so there is no reason to keep the article for now in the hope that something may turn up. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:41, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I think BHG nails it above; if he's notable as an SF writer, he warrants his own page, but if he's notable as a baronet he belongs with the other Lauder Baronets. Re David Lauder's comment about "a couple of authors comparing Burke's & Debrett's to telephone directories", I assume I'm one of the couple (and the other is, for reasons everyone involved is well aware of, not in a position to comment). I stand by the comparison; Burke's has over a million entries, and consequently while a legitimate source for proving that someone existed, and for verifying information such as dates of birth, accession, death etc, is not a valid source for proving notability. The fact that he went from minor Scottish nobility to SF writer - not exactly a traditional job - indicates there may indeed be an Almeric Paget style interesting story to be told here (whatever the Great God Consensus might say, I personally think WP:USEFUL and WP:INTERESTING are perfectly valid "keep" arguments), but at the moment the article doesn't indicate that. —  iride scent   (talk to me!)  15:53, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge to Lauder Baronets. Per BHG. Choess 01:03, 21 September 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.