Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sir Keith Arbuthnot, 8th 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 keep. - Bobet 13:12, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Sir Keith Arbuthnot, 8th Baronet

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Contested prod with the edit comment of 'notable'. This article is a biography where the only claim to notability is the title, Baronet. The title, although 'it is a hereditary honour', it 'is not a peerage and has never entitled the holder to a seat in the House of Lords'. This means that the title has no claim to notability based on heridtary right of input to the British Parliamentary or legal systems. So, whilst the first holder of the title may have (had) a claim to notability through the title, all subsequent holders claim to notability based on the title is that a family member may have been notable. Long established consensus is that 'notability cannot gained from relationship' and 'Wikipedia is not a genealogical database'. As the article offers no other claims to notability the subject fails WP:BIO and as the article offers no sources per WP:ATT it also fails policy. Nuttah68 15:43, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment: This page is a vanity page. Sir Keith Arbuthnot has no notability bar his hereditary title. It's quite clearly a vanity page. Just because some Baronets are notable doesn't mean this particular chap is. Florence Nightingale, for example, was notable - but that doesn't automatically mean wee Jeanie from the Southern General is notable because she happens to be a nurse also. No offence to nurses, by the way, first example that came to mind. Vanity page, get it off. T.Ball.CFC 00:55 13 March 2007 (GMT)
 * (this is the first edit from this editor--Vintagekits 00:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC))
 * Actually I can assure you this is not a vanity page. I know him and (1) he is not marginally vain and (2) he is intensely private. WP:AGF - Kittybrewster 02:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment, can you pleae confirm what if any family reltionship this person is to you?--Vintagekits 12:44, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Not so close. You work it out. - Kittybrewster  (talk) 12:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: the nominator here, about whom I can find virtually no information, has been accused on his talk page of "abusing the speedy deletion process by nominating articles that are not clear targets for speedy deletion." He appears from that page's contents to be very busy in deleting other editor's work. David Lauder 13:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment, If I was you I would not worry about the editor who has nominated I would concentrate on proving some sort of notability other the inheriting a minor title.--Vintagekits 13:32, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment, Well, you're not me, and your sneering comment about "minor titles" (I take you don't have one?) is also uncalled for. I am indeed worried about editors who are deleting pages all over the place. Do you have no respect for the overall project here? David Lauder 13:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment, you've lost me! what sneering? Baronet is a minor title! What overall project? As for title - I am a Volunteer what are you?--Vintagekits 13:49, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Please note the usual abusive and dismissive tone this editor has employed since his first day on Wikipedia, as well as his direct assertion of involvement in a terrorist organization ("I am a Volunteer" has but one meaning in this context). These provocations and this hatemongering unprofessionalism should no longer be tolerated.O&#39;Donoghue 12:58, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I suggest you read WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL, before you go any further, and also WP:TPG. Bold should be avoided. (And the St. Vincent de Paul is not a terrorist organisation.) Tyrenius 02:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep or merge.O&#39;Donoghue 12:58, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment, Volunteer is neither a title nor a rank. - Kittybrewster 14:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment, Well I can assure you I do not seek or wish to have a title but the guys down in the St. Vincent de Paul appreciate the time and help I give! Now back to proving notability for this dude - have you got any proof of notability? otherwise I am going to leave me !vote for delete or merge.--Vintagekits 14:55, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong keep. Numerous references to him in non-genealogical books. - Kittybrewster 15:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment, I'm referenced in numerous sources, phone book, electoral register, dispatches, ship's log, promotion boards and so on. However, none of these establish notability. Would you care to add to the article text and references that explain the subjects notability? Nuttah68 16:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment, Was it necessary for you to respond in such a sneering manner here? David Lauder 13:29, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment, he is not sneering simply pointing out that just because he is mentioned this does not mean he is mentioned for anything notable. If you read the Baronet page you will see that it states ''"A baronetcy is unique in two ways: *it is a hereditary honour but is not a peerage and has never entitled the holder to a seat in the House of Lords; and
 * a baronet is styled 'Sir' but a baronetcy is not considered an order of knighthood."'' I think this shows it is a minor title and does not convey notability.--Vintagekits 01:16, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It outranks knighthoods other than KG. - Kittybrewster 10:10, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, and they do not confer notability either. This guy is listed in a some books as just being alive (along with 1,000's of others with minor titles) - there is zero "depth of coverage" which a requirement of WP:BIO and ghits for "Sir Keith Arbuthnot" are mirrors.--Vintagekits 15:24, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. The article doesn't even say what his occupation is; "baronet" is a title, not a career. --Metropolitan90 16:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: If a baronet is announced at a function people don't run up to him and ask him what his career is! Being a baronet is notable in itself. David Lauder 16:22, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep- per Kitty. Baronets give the holder, and their families, a place in the Order of precedence in both England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Astrotrain 16:57, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment, - How does having a "place in the Order of precedence" convey notability in term of wiki policy?--Vintagekits 11:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment, Because, as the Wikipedia page on this points out, "Order of Precedence is a sequential hierarchy of nominal importance of people", so either they are important enought to be in that order, or not. Is it your suggestion that regardless of whether a State regards someone as important, you don't, and you wish Wikipedia to adopt a similar policy? David Lauder 13:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep- Baronets are part of the traditional society and fabric of England (and other parts of the UK) and this sort of information should be available online in Wikipedia, it consumes very little in resources. --Gibnews 17:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment, - So are dustman and chimney sweeps! Maybe we should have an article on each of them also!?! As for your asertion that "it consumes very little in resources" - that is not a valid argument to keep this article. Please try and base you !votes on wiki policy.--Vintagekits 11:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep - Baronets are generally of inherent interest. If this article were to be expanded it should improve.  It should not be deleted.--Counter-revolutionary 17:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - Can we please base !votes on Wiki policy and not on whether or not you "like it" or not as the case my be. Inheriting the title of Baron or Baronet is not in itself noteworthy and therefore fails WP:BIO and even the defunct proposal of WP:NOBLE. I will look at this again in a few days before I !vote but unless some other form of notability can be proven that does not relate to simply holding one or more honorary titles then I am leaning towards delete. Also adding "strong keep" as two editor have done above on the basis that this person is a Baron is in my opinion showing strong signing of POV rather than basing !votes on wiki policy.--Vintagekits 17:33, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment, Firstly, a baronetcy and a barony are differen things. All barons are automatically notable in Wikipedia, as all were, until recently politicians also.  This has nothing to do with being "honourary", which is a word meaningless in this concept.  Of couse editors have to express PoV here, without a point of view as to whether the article should be kept it would be impossible to comment at all! --Counter-revolutionary 17:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment, I refer you to WP:N and in particular Notability_criteria. Contributions to AfD should not be rooted in POV but based on policy and fact. Nuttah68 17:53, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment, - Counter-revolutionary you state that "All barons are automatically notable in Wikipedia" - can you show me where it states this in wiki policy?--Vintagekits 11:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - WP:BIO suggests that "politicians who have held international, national or statewide/provincewide office, and members and former members of a national, state or provincial legislatures" are automatically notable. In the UK, a Baron until recently had an automatic right to sit in the national upper legislature.--Counter-revolutionary 17:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - So thats Baron's covered but its NOT Baronet's. --Vintagekits 12:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * comment Also, WP:BIO says he is notable if he is part of the "enduring historical record". Aren't noblemen part of the enduring historical record? Davidicke 21:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - Not unless they satisfy WP:N and WP:BIO which most do as they got a seat in the House of Lords - which Baronets dont!--Vintagekits 12:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep - Whatever you think about the British honours system (and I sense that some contributors to this discussion are against it: I confess I myself find it significantly batty and, on a serious note, potentially corrupting) it is a part of public life in the UK that seems to interest plenty of folks in UK and anglophone places which used to be 'owned' by UK.   These guys enjoy disproportionate influence to the irritation of some and the delight (presumably) of others, but wiki is (I hope) concerned with facts much more than with reactions to facts (until of course those reactions become facts in their own right:  but that's an extract from another discussion).  If those people who buy and consult Burke's and its ilk in libraries and record offices google their interest on-line, it would be nice for wiki to be in the 'market' for their 'e-custom'.  So please keep it.   But please, someone who knows, expand it.   The guy must have done something interesting since leaving uni, and if he was really such a blushing violet he surely would not have let them give him an entry in Who's Who.   Or? Charles01 19:19, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment There are well over 1,000 baronets, and if they are notable, then so are all Knights of different hues, etc, and there's a lot of them. Are baronets really *automatically* notable?  Eliminator JR   Talk  19:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment >1 000 minor British aristocrats automatically notable?  Clearly not.  The fact that they appear in widely distributed works of reference (Burke's, Who's Who...) suggests that someone somewhere thinks them potentially notable.   The fact that those works of reference are provided for consultation in libraries in UK and (especially) those corners of the Anglosphere where for good and bad reasons many people have a warm fuzzy feeling for British tradition (ok, I'm thinking of most of Canada outside of Quebec, but I think it also applies elsewhere) suggests either that the acquisiton policies of those libraries are wrong or else that people are interested.   Should they be interested?   Is that a question for us to ask?   Should all >1 000 baronets get a wiki article?   Only if a wiki contributor (who is also, presumably, a more than averagely committed wiki reader) bothers to write one.   Several people seem to have bothered to contribute to the article on Arbuthnot, tho I agree that no one seems to have found anything very compelling to write about him.   But that's my judgement (and I guess yours).   Will all >1 000 baronets get a wiki article?   Same answer:  seems unlikely.   That applies across all categories:  there are thousands of academics who deserve a wiki article.   Some get them:  some don't.   Ditto medieval bishops.   Ditto very small towns in Ohio.   There is a wiki constituency who think Arbuthnot is interesting:  we disagree.   Maybe we disagree about other much more important issues about which we both feel much more passionately:  I hope we are not going to move from that to seek to restrict one another's rights to express our opinion.   The web offers huge possibilities for opening up knowledge:  it's impossible to know which bits of knowledge will be most valued in five or fifty years time.   But the troubling aspect is the way that by commonising our knowledge database, the web is actually being used to try and impose sets of politically convenient values on the rest of us.   I think that this does not lie comfortably with the wiki mind-set.   Or am I wrong about the wiki mindset?   Ah, well... Have a nice day anyhow.   Charles01 12:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * What? Can you please stick to outlining how this person is notable as per wiki policy. You state that "Several people seem to have bothered to contribute to the article on Arbuthnot, tho I agree that no one seems to have found anything very compelling to write about him." therefore you do not think that he is notable. It sound like you are arguing in favour of a merge to Arbuthnot baronets rather than a keep. Can you please make it clear why exaclty you think that this person in notable--Vintagekits 12:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * He has stated "keep".--Counter-revolutionary 15:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep - Whos Who entry and I'm persuaded by the arguments about the place of the Baronet in the UK Weggie 20:13, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment, Who's Who is not a reliable source as pre WP:RS each of the sections are self written and not checked by an editor - this section is from the Who's Who (UK) article and speaks volumes! -

"Who's Who has been criticised for being too old-fashioned. For example, all members of the English, Scottish, British and United Kingdom Peerage and Baronetage are included, however minor their achievements, but many better-known people, such as some leading footballers, are not. Occasional problems arise with the publication's reliability as a reference source, because the entries are compiled from questionnaires returned to the publisher by the featured subjects. This has resulted in notable biographical omissions; for example, the playwright John Osborne did not acknowledge an estranged daughter in his entry. Carole Jordan does not mention any marriage in her article, although her ex-husband, Richard Peckover, does in his." --Vintagekits 11:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment, out of interest I went and looked at a copy of Who's Who 2007 and Debretts just to see what level of depth it goes into on people. Firstly Debrett's - this is 1,797 pages - with approximately 13 entries per page and the Sir Keith Arbutnott entry does not state anything notable about him only when he was born and the names of his family members.


 * Who's Who - this is pretty much the same book as far as I can see just with even more people, the UK edition alone is 2,529 pages long this year and it has on average 16 people listings or referral's per page - you do the math on the amount of people in it then. Each page is split into two columns with 100 lines per column so that 200 lines per page (over half a million lines in the book). The entry for this person is 6 lines long in one column - that includes a line for his name and address of where they live - the other four lines include where he went to school and the names of his family members inc. ex. wife. In fact the article is almost word for word what is the article except it has no crest shown and it uses abbreviations for much of the textile. There is no mention of anything notable that he achieved except that he went to university. Both entries in both books are identical as far as I can see - are they connected in some way or compiled in the same way?


 * Anyway in both the is no depth of coverage and there is also no assertion of notability.--Vintagekits 13:18, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. I agree with Charles01's assessment of why we should have articles on people like this. Proteus (Talk) 21:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete This person went to college and got married, twice, and fatherd children. That is all that is claimed besides having trivial directory listings based on who his father was. There is no "inherent notability" policy which lets such nonnotable persons have articles, any more than the son of a politician would be inherently notable enough for an article. Fails WP:BIO and WP:N. Only appears to satisfy "ILIKEIT" on the part of persons enthralled by titles. "Order of precedence" apparently implies where he gets to sit at the dinner table based on who his father was, which does not dictate encyclopedic notability. It is not a line of succession to be head of state. Edison 23:01, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per all above. You could say Elizabeth II only got married and has trivial directory listings based on who her father was. Jcuk 23:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment No, there are actually articles on things Elizabeth did with her life which were productive and which were controversial. She has also been a character in a movie which gained an actress an Academy Award. She also has served as a constitutional monarch. Perhaps you are thinking of her distant relatives who are claimed to be notable solely on the basis of their birth. Edison 23:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment, - Jcuk, your comparision with Elizabeth II is a pretty flawed argument. E2 was a monarch and has had books written solely about her.--Vintagekits 11:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * comment Yes, I've even got coins in my pocket with her face stamped on them. She has a highway in Canada named after her too. Davidicke 21:15, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I would also contend that deleting biography stubs like this goes against the ethos of the Wikipedia Baronetcies project and will upset the lineage. What should be called for here is not deletion but further research and input to expand the article. David Lauder 13:01, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Arbuthnot Baronets. Catchpole 10:26, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep: like it or not, being a baronet is notable in itself in Great Britain. WP:N is a guideline only, and the template on that page specifically states: "it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception." The nominator of this AfD states although "it is a hereditary honour, it 'is not a peerage and has never entitled the holder to a seat in the House of Lords'. This means that the title has no claim to notability based on hereditary right of input to the British Parliamentary or legal systems." He is wrong in this opinion because all hereditary titles in Britain are notable. Today, 2007, no member of the peerage is entitled to a seat in the House of Lords. The Baronetage is always listed along with the Peerage in all publications and apart from the old right of a seat in The House, they are regarded as both noble and part of the titled aristocracy. Today they are on an entirely level playing field with the peerage. No member of the peerage or baronetcies has ever had "a hereditary right of input in the British legal systems", unless it was passing legislation. This baronet appears in Debrett's Distinguished People of Today, the editors of which contend, in an article in The Guardian (6 Feb 89), contains "the most distinguished people in the country - all those listed truly deserve their place".
 * Comment, so are you asking us to ignore wiki guidelines in favour of what? and given your comment above don’t you think that considering your comment here when you state that Debretts is not a reliable source but now you are using it as a source that you are hypocritical and voting on the basis or what you like or not and on the basis of wiki policy. Arn't the entries in Debretts actually written by the people themselves?--Vintagekits 21:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: According to The Guardian article of 1989 their editors said that they themselves select notables for their publication. That was 1989 and the publication I cited from was 1988. I knew David Williamson and when he was editor things were done differently. The point here is not what was said on other AfDs but what is being said here. I was answering the remark on notability made by the nominator and I believe that I correctly answered that. David Lauder 22:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Arbuthnot Baronets as suggested by Catchpole, above. Just so nobody accuses me of being against the British honours system, I happen to rather like it, but I believe that on the evidence currently presented, this person's notability is entirely due to the title, and is therefore adequately described on the page to which the redirect might be made. As a slight aside, consider the spirit of WP:ORG (section 3.1.1) with regard to subsidiary organisations; these are grouped with their national body. A similar system would neatly cover all future issue in this line, and separate articles will be quite in order if any of these people do something interesting and notable by Wikipedia standards. – Kieran T  (' talk ') 16:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * either keep or kieran T's redirect. I would think a title conferred by a monarch should mean something to notability, but then again, a majority of living UK baronets do not even have a Wikipedia page. I'm hesitant to suggest outright deletion just because, if otherwise-unnotable Baronets should be deleted, what does that mean for the 50,000 indie-rock bands mentioned on Wikipedia? Who will be more important 100 years from now? Davidicke 17:23, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment a redirect to the Arbuthnot Baronets is fine. I have no problem with an article for the title and articles for notable holders of the title. Where it seems faintly stupid, is splitting an article out from the Arbuthnot Baronets (or any other Baronet page) when there is nothing more of note to add. Nuttah68 17:28, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep - Article has 5 external independent sources. The fact that he is listed in Debrett's Distinguished People of Today (for example) must indicate some degree of notability, surely? We must rely on secondary sources such as these to determine notability, rather than judging it for ourselves. JulesH 19:16, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: I don't believe we can consider Debrett's – worthy publication though it may be – to be a granter of notability, because their criteria are different from ours; specifically, they are more interested in notability by reason of title than we have yet decided (by consensus) to be. – Kieran T  (' talk ') 20:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment We have decided, by consensus, that anyone considered worth commenting on by multiple independent reliable sources is notable. So the fact that Debrett's et al consider this person worth publishing information about does influence whether wikipedia (by consensus) considers the person notable. 22:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * comment I agree he's notable - but, if he is only notable for his title and ancestry, then perhaps he and his predecessors should have their articles merged into the article Arbuthnot Baronets? As for the question of Debrett, I'd suggest notability is not subjective - a secondary source reputable on this particular topic should suffice for establishing notability, as long as it makes more than a trivial mention of him. If Debrett's is reputed, and if the entry is non-trivial, that should be swell, yes? Davidicke 21:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Response to a comment: Not really. Sorry to appear argumentative. But the famous Debrett's publication (from which I suspect their others are in part drawn) is basically a list of certain types of ranks, with a bit of pertinent info on the entries. Publication in a book doesn't equal notable, no matter how true or reputable. – Kieran T  (' talk ') 00:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Arbuthnot Baronets in line with the comments Catchpole, this person is from a somewhat notable family but as we know from wiki precedent you do gain notability because of your relationship to others. Secondly this person has never been involved in any event of note or held any role of note and this should be a warning to editors about allowing individuals an article simply because of an inherited title. People should have to adhere to WP:N, WP:BIO and WP:BLP if they are to have an article - this individual does neither. This an encyclopaedia not a genealogy service.--Vintagekits 21:54, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * CommentYou appear to wish to speak "to editors" from a position of superiority which, alas, does not accrue to you. I would say from reading your comments on this page you are biased against people with titles. As you are so repetitive, I shall join you: like it or not, being a baronet is notable in itself in Great Britain. WP:N is a guideline only, and the template on that page specifically states: "it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception." I think that if you have an axe to grind you should remove it from Wikipedia, instead of trying to use Wikipedia guidelines or rules as a cover. David Lauder 22:22, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment, "trying to use Wikipedia guidelines or rules as a cover" - maybe my comments just sound superior because I use wiki policies to make my decisions instead on POV.--Vintagekits 00:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break 1

 * Keep It appears, in the main, that the 'deleters' do not give much importance to titles inherited from the past whereas the 'keepers' wish to perpetuate our British history. An encyclopedia is to colate and impart knowledge and if it is with data on the past it should be encouraged and supported as: it is our past which forges our future. Alastair Noble 02:39, 9 March 2007
 * 9th edit by this user. Tyrenius 03:35, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * To the admin closing this AfD, please note a number of editors who have !voted on this !vote have been involved in vote canvassing and now what another administrator has called “lock step” voting. Over the past months a number of editors have been accused of !voting on the basis of what “they like” rather than using the rationale of wiki policies. A number of central users such as Astrotrain, Kittybrewster, Counter-revolutionary, David Lauder, Major Bonkers but at times have also included Fraslet and to a lesser extent  Weggie and Gibnews and also El chulito and Inthegloaming who I very strongly suspect are/were socks.

All of the above can by generally stated as voting within the anti Irish republican and pro British unionist/ monarchist.

It started with Astrotrain nominating a number of Volunteers from the Provisional Irish Republican Army and canvassing during those !votes. Canvassing for AfD !votes for Raymond Gilmour

Since then there has been what I consider a systematic abuse of the AfD system with a number of a same editors arriving at an AfD on a subject which they either like or dislike and voting to delete or keep on POV rather then wiki policy. The first AfD that occur was –

James McDade AfD Nominated by Astrotrain. Result – ‘’’Keep’’’ 13 votes to Keep and 1 to Delete – that vote by as Astrotrain – therefore 100% of the delete !votes from “the group”.

Then [|Gerard Montgomery] – this AfD was nominated by Astrotrain on the basis of non notability. However Tyrenius ended the AfD because of a source that stated that Montgomery was involved in a murder.

Then Antoine MacGiolla Bhrighde AfD, this AfD was nominated by Astrotrain on the basis of non notability. Result – no consenus to delete, Keep 7 votes and Delete 7 votes – 5 of those votes from “the group” – therefore 71% of the delete votes to delete from “the group” in an article that was kept.

Then Charles Breslin AfD, this AfD was nominated by Astrotrain on the basis of non notability. Result – no consenus to delete, Keep 4 votes and Delete 4 votes – 2 of those votes from “the group” – therefore 50% of the delete votes to delete from “the group” in an article that was kept.

Then Martin McGartland AfD, this AfD was nominated by Astrotrain on the basis of non notability. Result – Keep, Keep 10 votes and Delete 1 votes – that of Astrotrains

Then Diarmuid O’Neill AfD, this AfD was nominated by Astrotrain on the basis of non notability. Result – No consensus, This is where the real vote staking operation started and canvassing came into effect. Keep 20 votes and Delete 10 votes – 5 of those votes from “the group” – therefore 50% of the delete votes to delete from “the group” in an article that was kept. Note the first eight !votes were to Keep and that is when the canvassing started and since then there has been almost total lock step.

Then Charles Breslin AfD, this AfD was nominated by Astrotrain on the basis of non notability. Result – no consenus to delete, Keep 4 votes and Delete 4 votes – 2 of those votes from “the group” – therefore 50% of the delete votes to delete from “the group” in an article that was kept.

Then we had a AfD of a biography relating to a member of the “British nobility”. This was the Robert_Murray_Arbuthnot AfD, this AfD was nominated by  Argyriou on the basis of non notability. Result – Delete, Keep 4 votes and Delete 9 votes – 3 of those votes from “the group” – therefore 75% of the votes to keep from “the group” in an article that was deleted

Again back to an Irish republican and the Martin_McCaughey AfD, this AfD was nominated by Tyrenius on the basis of non notability. Result – Keep, Keep 16 votes and Delete 12 votes – 7 of those votes from “the group” – therefore 58% of the votes to delete from “the group” in an article that was kept.

Similar behaviour and calls for deletion in an number of AfD’s of members of the Provisional IRA East Tyrone Brigade such as the Tony Gormley AfD – bios of each of those that were merged not deleted can be seen on the of the bottom of the page that they were merged to.

The  Óglaigh na hÉireann (CIRA splinter group) AfD, this AfD was nominated by Astrotrain received no delete votes and result was speedy keep'.

The Republic UK AfD, an anti monarchy organisation where they all !voted delete for an article that was kept.

There are on going AfD’s which the same pattern at the Federal_Commonwealth_Society| (here is where admin MrDarcy highlights this potential stalk voting),  Lady_Mabel_Fitzwilliam and now here.--Vintagekits 01:59, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment: What a scandalous load of rubbish. So every time the same editors appear on an AfD they are all in collusion or have been canvassing? If that is the case we could probably list dozens of AfDs where the same (but other) editors have appeared. this is a childish and infantile attempt to do nothing other than cause trouble and to cast others in a bad light. David Lauder 11:35, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment, No scandal, no rubbish - facts provided to prove canvassing and a pattern of POV block voting - this is making a mockery of the whole AfD system.--Vintagekits 11:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: and how many of these votes have you participated in, Vintagekits? [| Luke 6:42]. --Major Bonkers 21:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Martin McGartland seems proof Vintage is wrong again. - Kittybrewster 22:17, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Mergeto Arbuthnot Baronets. To be honest, this whole issue really needs to be looked at by an experienced Admin because it's somewhat ridiculous. Minor members of the British aristocracy ARE NOT NOTABLE unless they've got some other notability reason, and while we're at it, the same goes for members of Northern Irish paramilitary organisations as well. Eliminator JR   Talk  01:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC)01:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * That is your opinion ONLY but others differ in this. David Lauder 11:35, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree, article should be judged on WP:BIO, WP:BLP and WP:N.--Vintagekits 02:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Merge and redirect to 7th Baronet or whoever is notable in their own right, or, better still to Arbuthnot Baronets. It is being argued that the Baronetcy in itself is the notable feature, so that should be the article and the numbered Baronets can be integrated in it. It can also provide a history of the origin and any changes in family home etc.. If any Baronet is individually notable for particular achievements (in the way of Sir Norman Stronge, 8th Baronet for example), then they can also have their own article. The present policy just creates numerous short articles with no real information in them, apart from a directory listing of offspring. This is an inefficient way to present information for those interested in the subject, who will have to click through several articles to gain very little information for their labours. Tyrenius 03:36, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Redirect Most people with titles have a hard time having a normal life. Publishing people's personal details on the internet without their permission is outrageous. If someone wants a low profile, let them have one. 82.153.118.101
 * First edit by this anon. Tyrenius 03:33, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. Quite agree. There is nothing here that is not sourced public domain info. - Kittybrewster 22:17, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. I wasn't going to comment, but as Vintagekits has referred to me, above, as part of his mythical block of like-minded !voters, I feel released from my self-imposed silence. Would that some others had my self-restraint. Anyway: reason for keeping - article is clearly stated to be a stub, requests help, and needs extra work. No doubt the proposer of this AfD can come back and have a look in 6 months. Biographical articles can be hard to research - in fact, it's amazing how many rely on inadequate citations. Editors on this article need to be cut a little slack.--Major Bonkers 21:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment No, the proposer of this AfD is not prepared to come back later. The article has already been in existence since June '06 (9 months) and no one has been able to provide references confirming notability. Even a stub must provide references per WP:ATT and 9 months is more than enough time to do this. Nuttah68 08:24, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: Untrue. Three of the most "reliable sources" on persons of notability carry this baronet and all three are cited. If there is a time limit within Wikipedia's rules as to how long a stub may stay up unexpanded then please point us to it. David Lauder 09:31, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Even a stub needs to show notability, particularly when challenged at an AfD. If all the people endorsing keep are unable to add substantially to the article it effectively invalidates their position, which becomes merely an opinion. Tyrenius 03:31, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment:It is "the opinion" of three of the most prominent works on important people in the UK that this baronet is notable. They are cited on the article page. If that is not sufficient, how many do you require? David Lauder 09:31, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep: Who’s Who, published annually since 1849 and the first biographical book of its kind, is among the world’s most recognised and respected works of reference. The UK Who's Who is the mother of all works on notability. The phrase 'Who's Who of' has passed into the English language due to this publication, and all the other biographical works arond the world can trace their ancestry to it. There are thousands of articles on Wikipedia about people who would be instantly rejected for inclusion by the Who's Who selection board. Who's Who is the ultimate reference concerning notability. To say no references concerning notability have been provided is ridiculous. Invariably when you see politicians, artists, writers being interviewed on television in front of their bookcase you see the big red copy of Who's Who sitting there. Concerning inaccurate comments above, a baronetcy is not a species of Knighthood because a baronet outranks all knights except Knights of the Garter, so not being a species of knighthood is a reflection of the importance of the rank rather than otherwise. Anyone who is in Who's Who has the ultimate reference concerning notability. It trumps all others by an order of magnitude. People may not like it, but thats the way the world is. AnnabelBuxton 09:23, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I see absolutely no reason why Wikipedia should defer to another publication's decisions on notability, however well-known. If a subject doesn't meet WP notability criteria, there's no way that "being in Who's Who" should be able to save them.  Also, Who's Who contains some pretty obscure people.  Eliminator JR   Talk  11:09, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment but WP's primary notability criterion is being mentioned in other reputable publications; this makes your argument essentially meaningless. JulesH 22:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Because Wikipedia is about the real world. Not about some imaginary world like second life. Let's take the example of popular music musicians. Everyone with a top 40 hit seems entitled to a page on Wikipedia. How many people is that 30,000 probably, but for the sake of argument let's say 3000. Well about 30 pop stars make it into Who's Who. So for Who's Who the criteria for inclusion are two orders of magnitude tougher. The wikipedia criteria are "A topic is notable if it has been the subject of secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, independent of the subject and independent of each other. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered" - thats WHY you should 'defer' to the most widely accepted reference on notability in the UK. AnnabelBuxton 11:24, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment The fact there are only 30 pop artists in Who's Who, but thousands of minor members of the nobility, proves my point, in that Who's Who necessarily has inbuilt POV. It also includes many figures in industry, finance, academia etc. who would also fail Wikipedia notability guidelines.  An example: the front page of Who's Who website gives some people from the publication who have birthdays today.  Today's 'notable people'a reporter & internet columnist, the current CEO of Scottish Water, and the General Secretary of Churches Together in England Notable?  Perhaps, perhaps not.  Another point - is only Who's Who UK allowed?  What about the US version, where you can nominate people for inclusion? Also, you've quoted WP above "...the depth of coverage..." part.  A simple "this person exists" entry in Who's Who doesn't qualify for that.  Eliminator JR   Talk  12:59, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment The inbuilt POV of Who's Who is that of mainstream UK society. That is why people shell out £125 a copy for it and it is on the bookshelf of almost every politician, judge, journalist, writer, artist etc in the UK. Anyone can be nominated in the UK too. You can even nominate yourself, but nomination is a very different matter to inclusion. If your Worldview/POV is restricted to music and football, then that's fine, trying to impose that worldview on other's isn't fine. There are I think 28,000 people in Who's Who out of a population of sixty million. Save up and buy a copy, or go to your Library. Wikipedia is not a working class revolutionary movement, so reflecting the views of mainstream society is perfectly acceptable. AnnabelBuxton 13:14, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm sorry, but the people in Who's Who do not in any way, shape or form represent "mainstream British society". I'm not arguing at all that musicians or footballers are necessarily more or less notable than minor nobility, but the former have their own criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia (see many, many previous AfDs) and so should the latter.  Incidentally, your use of the phrase "working class revolutionary movement" indicates that you are trying to impose your own POV on this AfD.  Eliminator JR   Talk  13:45, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment They represent the mainstream consensus on notability. Obviously they are not mainstream themselves, otherwise two thirds of the populaton would be in there. I am sorry if I offended you, I was simply trying to point out that your worldview may have been influenced by your environment. You should be very proud of your background, while accepting that it may have given you a perspective not shared by all. Also Baronets are the sixth rung of the Nobiles Majores. They are not minor. We don't really have minor nobility in the UK. Unlike the continent where they do have bucketfuls of aristocrats. AnnabelBuxton 14:51, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment, No it doesnt reflect society - Who's Who is not a reliable source as pre WP:RS each of the sections are self written and not checked by an editor - this section is from the Who's Who (UK) article and speaks volumes! -

"Who's Who has been criticised for being too old-fashioned. For example, all members of the English, Scottish, British and United Kingdom Peerage and Baronetage are included, however minor their achievements, but many better-known people, such as some leading footballers, are not. Occasional problems arise with the publication's reliability as a reference source, because the entries are compiled from questionnaires returned to the publisher by the featured subjects. This has resulted in notable biographical omissions; for example, the playwright John Osborne did not acknowledge an estranged daughter in his entry. Carole Jordan does not mention any marriage in her article, although her ex-husband, Richard Peckover, does in his." --Vintagekits 11:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep pending a wider debate on notability as it applies to Baronets. To my mind, notability of people does not just come from their own actions; it also comes from their position in life, which may not have been earned but which is there nonetheless. The fact that a significant number of people consider Baronets to be worthy of record and study is a mark of notability, whether or not others disagree. Can I also add that I am not interested in a debate here on my !vote on this deletion debate, and that any comments added in disagreement with my !vote will be ignored. Sam Blacketer 11:16, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per above. Just Heditor review 13:14, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Summary to this point
 * Arguments in favour of keep - 16
 * Arguments in favour of keep or redirect- 1
 * Arguments in favour of redirect/merge - 4 (+1 anon)
 * Arguments in favour of delete - 3
 * - Kittybrewster 15:09, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that summary, but please refer to Articles for deletion. This is a discussion. This is not a vote. Strength of arguments takes precedence over strength of numbers. – Kieran T  (' talk ') 15:13, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Exactly, I would also note that a number of !keep votes are from those who have been involved in canvassing amongest each other and also a number of other !keep votes from with other highly suspicious activity - i.e. no activity from a number of month and then they reappear to !vote here which is a strong sign of 1. that they are a sock or 2. that there is canvassing activity elsewhere outside of wiki. Putting that aside this is not a democratic vote it is the strength of the argument that counts and many of the above are basising the keep !vote of that basis that he is a Baronet which has been shown that it is not automatically notable unlike a Baron which gets a seat in the Upper Houses of the UK parliment --Vintagekits 15:15, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Those arguments are worse than weak, they are wrong. Most Barons and other peers do NOT get seats in the upper houses of parliament. Both peers and baronets have to have their claims verified by the UK Government home office, upon being proven their are entered on the Roll Of Peers or Baronets, and take their rank in UK Society according to the order of precedence which is enshrined in law. If the UK were like the Italian Republic where there is no government verification or recognition of titles or their rank then you would have a point, as it is please research your statements. If you are using length of service on Wikipedia as a mark of importance, then you can't exactly deny the British aristocracy their importance in English society can you. As Orwell pointed out in Animal Farm, you can't get rid of elitism, you can only replace one form with another. AnnabelBuxton 11:17, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment AnnabelBuxton is not quite right here. Until 1999, Barons in the Peerage of the United Kingdom were automatically eligible for a seat in the House of Lords, subject only to a) "proving" their claim to the title, and b) applying for a "writ of summons" (which is a purely formal step). As Annabel correctly notes, Baronets are also subject to the requirement to prove their claims, and a baronetcy does not make a person eligible for a seat in the House of Lords. --BrownHairedGirl (talk)  • (contribs) 18:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment - there needs to be a wider debate on the inclusion of baronets who, like Sir Keith here, have no other claim to notability other than being baronets; This issue should not keep coming up in AfD test cases and then never enter the lexicon of policy. We need consistency of approach to these articles, which means a general debate. --New Progressive 12:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I second that suggestion. Sam Blacketer 14:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment this was attempted under the proposed guideline WP:NOBLE. This attempt at a guideline was closed as no consensus, in part due to the following proposal. This proposal was suggested and backed by members of WikiProject Baronetcies. In the original guideline Baronets came under WP:NOBLE. Nuttah68 14:06, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep the article:
 * Keep - as above. Craigy (talk) 15:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - God bless all here. Some observations on three fronts. First, Wikipedia itself.  It has become voluminous, but its quality does not approach its size.  Rather like a cyberspace Wal-Mart.  Some of the articles are wrong, and there are limits to the iterative/reiterative process.  The beast grows, but it may not be improving. Second, the editing.  Nuttah68 gives his game away in his first several words.  “Contested prod with the edit comment of ‘notable’.”  Is this a frank admission of religious prejudice or what?  After that sterling intro, he lapses into a jarring imitation of a Prussian lawyer examining precedents and logic.  Come on, Nuttah, you don’t care about rules and practice; you want to bloody a “prod” nose.  On that last point, I happen to agree with you.  I’d like to start with Rowan Williams.  Perhaps we could discuss our shared views in a less public venue. Whatever our shared opinions, neither of us is justified in acting on them and then attempting to hide them behind rules which, however hard one tries, do not come in one size that fits all. Perhaps you and I – and Vintagekits – could work together on a similar censorship campaign, but one that’s all to the public good.  (I, too, find I can be self-righteous when my prejudices and actions coincide, in the interest of rightness as I see it.)  As I mentioned above, Wikipedia is no source, and at least one university history department has banned its use.  It has some articles that are so erroneous as to be hilariously funny.  One of these is entitled “Cassiques.”  Take a look at it.  It contains the names of people that never existed.  It also contains a number of Ascendancy prods from the years shortly after the Boyne.  The Church of Ireland Arthur family from Limerick.  The Church of Ireland Bayly family from Ballinaclough.  Honored (allegedly, in the Arthur case: one of the article's many errors) by the English power structure.  Let’s get rid of that article.  There are excellent, uncontroversial reasons for doing so.  And there’s also the frisson of prodding a prod.  Third, notability.  As for Keith A., I find it notable that he married and then had only three children.  One or more of the participating editors may have had acknowledged children out of wedlock, and others may have so many as to make the local pastor look askance.  Marriage and a manageable number of legitimate children.  That was ho-hum in the 1950s.  Surely worth a headline today in News of the World.  But most of all,  I put great store by what my eyes tell me:  he is notable enough to be targeted by targeters who have a long history of targeting.

1. The move to delete Keith is based both on his rank and and on the rank prejudice of the would-be censor(s). 2. The article, although brief, appears accurate. A special place in the Wikipedia pantheon. 3. There are bigger fish to fry.

For the conspiracy theorists among us. This is my first contribution to the Wiki process under any name. I do not know Keith. But I am an American, and we don’t stand too much on ceremony. At the same time, this country has a long agricultural tradition. Tunnah, I can smell fertilizer an ocean away. You seem to be producing way more than your share.Eamon76 19:55, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment, This is the first ever post from this editor, highly suspicious - from here there are a number of !keep votes from people without basing them on wiki policy - there is possibly signs of "off wiki" canvassing. --Vintagekits 10:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I hope that the word 'prod' used here by Nuttah (or indeed Tunnah) is Wikipedian for 'proposed delete' rather than Glaswegian for Protestant (see Prod). -- roundhouse 09:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment, Let go through the article rationally to see if he is notable.


 * 1) The son of Sir Hugh Arbuthnot, 7th Baronet by his first wife Elizabeth Kathleen (d.1972) daughter of Squadron Leader George Algernon Williams, was educated at Wellington College and Edinburgh University, where he received a Bachelor of Science. (not notable)
 * 2) His brother is David Arbuthnot, racecourse trainer. On 3 July 1983 he succeeded to his father's baronetcy. (not notable)
 * 3) Arbuthnot has married twice: (1) May 22, 1982, to Anne Rosemary, younger daughter of Brigadier Peter Moore (divorced 1997); (2) February 14, 2003, Alison Jane Warner. (not notable)
 * 4) He has issue by his first wife, Robert Hugh Peter Arbuthnot (b. 2 March 1986), Patrick William Martin Arbuthnot (b. 13 July 1987), Alice Elizabeth Mary Arbuthnot (b. 22 March 1990) (not notable)

Seems pretty straight forward.--Vintagekits 13:05, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break 2
Some of the arguments in this AFD discussion appear to me to be concerning themselves with whether people approve or disapprove of the system of honours and nobility. That's irrelevant: I'm sure that all of us can pints to huge swathes of Wikipedia which cover things we dislike, disapprove of, or think are over-rated. Other parts of the discussion appear to be a re-run of the arguments which were (or should have been) made wrt to the rejected guideline. I think it would have been useful to have some guideline, whatever it said, to avoid re-inventing the wheel each time this issue arises; but there isn't one, and there's no point proceeding as if we are devising a guideline on either heredity or nobility. Without a special guideline we have to fall back to assessing this particular article under WP:NN and WP:BIO. It seems to me that the 8th Baronet here is a marginal case wrt to WP:NN: numerous entries in works on nobility and a Who's Who entry seem to me to go a long way to meeting WP:NN, but without unambiguously getting there. The discussion above includes well-reasoned arguments both for against this baronet meeting WP:NN. As to WP:BIO, I can't find anything there which suggests that this is a special case. However, I am persuaded by the arguments above by Charles01: "Whatever you think about the British honours system (... I myself find it significantly batty and, on a serious note, potentially corrupting) it is a part of public life in the UK that seems to interest plenty of folks in UK and anglophone places which used to be 'owned' by UK. These guys enjoy disproportionate influence". That's what clinches it for me: the fact of being the latest title-holder in a family which includes several notable people and apperas to somewhat influential. However, I don't think that all baronets pass that test: not all families of baronets have anyone notable, and plenty of baronetcies were sold by Maundy Gregory or awarded to otherwise obscure people who happened to find favour with the government of the day. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:38, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak keep, after some hesitation. This is a difficult issue: it is clear from the discussions about the proposed Notability (royalty) guidelines that there is cuurently no consensus either way about whether hereditary nobility itself confers a presumption of notability.


 * Keep, provisionally per WP:BIO: "A topic is notable if it has been the subject of secondary sources that are reliable, independent of the subject and independent of each other. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability." At the very, very least, this baronet has received non-substantial coverage from a wide multitude of independent sources, making him notable.  That shouldn't be debatable. In the wider view, to address the concerns of folks supporting the deletion of this article, I'd say I support keeping articles like this until policy is seriously considered and clarified with respect to baronets along predictable and rational lines. We shouldn't just toss articles out because there isn't any specific policy that positively establishes their notability right now. -- Thesocialistesq/M.Lesocialiste 21:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment,A telephone book is a reliable secondary source - however it give no "depth of coverage" - The main issue here is "Depth of Coverage" - Who's who is a listing and provides no "Depth of Coverage". A Baron who obtains a seat in the House of Lords is notable - however although a Baronet might seem/sound very similar they are infact very different and the title of Baronet does have any really power and is an honorary title - unlike Duke, Earl and Baron. This persons article is solely based on his title and as he would not have an article otherwise and does not comply with WP:N or WP:BIO then he should not have an article.--Vintagekits 10:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment. There are some very useful and helpful comments above which in my view shouldf be gathered together by the closing administrator and preserved for posterity in order to avoid future arguments of this kind. I hope that may be possible. I think many of the arguments are also relevant to other categories, such as Lord Mayors, Lord Provosts and Provosts, British and American ambassadors (to wherever) - but somehow I personally wouldn't extend that to all Gambian ambassadors, all Knights and Dames Grand Cross, probably all knights and dames, all Lords Lieutenant and Deputy Lieutenants and all High Sheriffs, Generals, Admirals, Air Marshalls and Air Vice Marshalls and recipients of the GC. Provided some wikieditor has gone to the trouble to write an article for them. It is ridiculous that somebody like Jackiey Budden has an article while folk who have in their time been recognised by or leaders in the society find their articles susceptible to questionning on grounds of insufficient notability. - Kittybrewster 23:16, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep Who's Who seems a sufficient citation. It would help if some activities could be provided for the baronet, other than birth, marriages and procreation. -- roundhouse 09:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment, Who's Who is not a reliable source as pre WP:RS each of the sections are self written and not checked by an editor - this section is from the Who's Who (UK) article and speaks volumes! -

"Who's Who has been criticised for being too old-fashioned. For example, all members of the English, Scottish, British and United Kingdom Peerage and Baronetage are included, however minor their achievements, but many better-known people, such as some leading footballers, are not. Occasional problems arise with the publication's reliability as a reference source, because the entries are compiled from questionnaires returned to the publisher by the featured subjects. This has resulted in notable biographical omissions; for example, the playwright John Osborne did not acknowledge an estranged daughter in his entry. Carole Jordan does not mention any marriage in her article, although her ex-husband, Richard Peckover, does in his." --Vintagekits 11:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment, I meant that inclusion in WW is sufficient indication of notability. -- roundhouse 13:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment, It is patently not - as stated above, I went and looked at a copy of Who's Who 2007 and Debretts just to see what level of depth it goes into on people. Firstly Debrett's - this is 1,797 pages - with approximately 13 entries per page and the Sir Keith Arbutnott entry does not state anything notable about him only when he was born and the names of his family members.


 * Who's Who - this is pretty much the same book as far as I can see just with even more people, the UK edition alone is 2,529 pages long this year and it has on average 16 people listings or referral's per page - you do the math on the amount of people in it then. Each page is split into two columns with 100 lines per column so that 200 lines per page (over half a million lines in the book). The entry for this person is 6 lines long in one column - that includes a line for his name and address of where they live - the other four lines include where he went to school and the names of his family members inc. ex. wife. In fact the article is almost word for word what is the article except it has no crest shown and it uses abbreviations for much of the textile. There is no mention of anything notable that he achieved except that he went to university. Both entries in both books are identical as far as I can see - are they connected in some way or compiled in the same way?


 * Anyway in both the is no depth of coverage and there is also no assertion of notability.---Vintagekits 13:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment I meant that inclusion in WW is sufficient indication of notability. -- roundhouse 13:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment, I know, you said that but its not especially as each of the 40,000 entrant fills out their own questionaire and effectively writes their own entry - there is no depth of coverage and in this case no claim of notability within the entry and therefore an entry in a book of listing is not enough for pass WP:N - why dont we just have an articles on everyone in the phonebook!--Vintagekits 13:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment Let us agree to differ on this matter. I wonder how many articles there are in Wikipedia on living British people. Rather more than 40,000 perhaps. -- roundhouse 14:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Agree to disagree on what? Are you saying that there is a depth of covering in Who's who? Are you saying that all 40,000 people in the Who's who listing get automatic notability on wiki, if so please show me where it states that in Wilipolicy? we have a lot more than 40,000 Bios - and they must all comply with WP:N, WP:BIO/WP:BLP or they should be deleted.--Vintagekits 14:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment Enough. -- roundhouse 15:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Enough what? enough you cant rationalise your comments or enough you dont want to rationalise your comments, to pass someones qwuery of your comments off by just say I have had enough of disucssing with you seriously weakens your arguement. Please note this is note a vote as such it is a discussion and the decision will be based on rational, reasoned and well constructed arguement. regards--Vintagekits 15:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment:It seems to me that the (presumably unconcious) atavistic tribalism in which many of the contributions here are marinated is a much more fascinating, and also a much more serious subject than the issue of whether one fellow's favourite baronet is more or less deserving of an article than another fellow's favourite singer. Many wiki readers have not grown up in the heroic traditions of either Irish Republicanism or of British Imperialism, and would be thoroughly baffled by the passions stirred here. You thought Irish Republicanism and British Imperialism were off topic for this discussion? Take another look. There are plenty of honourable traditions that have from time to time been rendered scurrilous by the atrocities perpetrated in their names. Time may lead to more balance. But how many centuries will pass before an objective viewpoint is widely accepted concerning the crusading movements formally launched outside Clermont in 1095? Wikipedia is about knowledge. Both the honourable bits and the scurrilous bits deserve to be known: you can agree on that even before you will agree over which are which. If the more animated of the protagonists participating here think they will convert each other to one another's cause, then I think that they are doing whatever it is they are doing into the wind. And they must surely know it already. Wiki is trying to build knowledge: where it succeeds in that, it is to be commended. Excluding articles on 'people we don't like' (whether from personal knowledge or simply because we are riled by the curious names by which they wish to be known) reduces the overall bank of knowledge available and thereby renders more suspect that knowledge which remains uncensored. You will not convert your most committed opponents to your cause, least of all by haranguing them and seeking to exclude articles on matters that interest them. But you might at least enhance your own case to the unpersuaded by devoting your undoubted talents to maximising the information (information = facts) available on the causes about which you feel most positively. I guess that is what underlies my own instinct (?prejudice) in favour of retaining and improving articles about ... almost anything that anyone has bothered to write about in cases of stated doubt. So yes, my ‘keep’ vote is to be construed as a vote for knowledge and not as a vote for the British Empire, a subject on which my further views are mercifully out of scope.

There also seems to be a move afoot to encourage selective quoting of statements of wiki policy in support of one's viewpoint in this discussion. I forgot every wiki-policy I ever read so just I took another look. Here are a few quotable bits I found I agreed with after thirty seconds of clicking:

''  “Articles that can be improved should be edited or tagged, not nominated for deletion.”

''  “…but ...in some cases, repeated attempts to have an article deleted may even be considered disruptive. If in doubt, don't delete.”

  “Treating others with respect is key to collaborating effectively in building an encyclopedia.”

I had wondered, as these discussions unfolded, whether I was indeed guilty of having misconstrued the wiki mind-set. It may be so: I certainly don't expect to acquire an intimate knowledge of all the wiki policies any time soon. But it does (still) seem to me that the wiki mind-set prefers wider and deeper knowledge over opinion and censorship. When in doubt, please share the facts with the rest of us and let the facts build your case, especially where you find the facts offensive: you may gather more converts than you'd expected. As for Sir Keith Arbuthnot, I still wish that someone somewhere would find something more interesting to write about him.

For better or worse, I fear I may have alienated anyone else who feels strongly enough about matters thrown up by this article to have participated in the discussion about it. But in the event that you're still there, thank you for reading this.Charles01 14:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment, this is not an issue of POV or of keeping knowledge away from people (censorship if you wish) this is an issue of notability. You stated in your keep !vote "The guy must have done something interesting since leaving uni" or else he wouldnt be in Who's who. There are a few things are wrong with that 1. That is not a strong reason to keep and it not based on wiki policy 2. he hasnt done anything noteworthy since uni (or at least nothing is stated about this is the article) 3. Who's who automatically gives a listing to Peers and Baronets if they reutrn their questionaire, so its not on merit and Wiki does not apply the same critieria 4. Wiki is not a crystal ball, we cannot assume that he must have done something or will do something or note if there is no proof.--Vintagekits 14:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Actually, that is based on wikipedia policy: WP:N states that any subject that's discussed by multiple independent reliable sources is notable. Who's Who and Debretts are independent reliable sources.  It doesn't matter, as far as Wikipedia's policy is concerned, what policy they use to determine notability: the policy we use is to note that they have determined that this person is notable. JulesH 19:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment, Neither Who's Who or Debretts are independent reliable sources as the entires are written by the people themselves - additonally there much be a depth of coverage, there isnt and additional it does not make any asertion to notability as per WP:N or WP:BIO--Vintagekits 22:43, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Merge This is a vanity page and doesn't belong on Wikipedia. The author has not shown any notability whatsoever about the subject of the article.
 * —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TamB (talk • contribs).
 * 8th edit by this user. Tyrenius 02:06, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Note per AfD Wikiquette &mdash; The accusation VANITY should be avoided, and is not in itself a reason for deletion. However, if you think it doesn't belong on Wikipedia, surely you should be advocating "delete", rather than "merge", which keeps the content. Tyrenius 02:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. Actually I can assure you this is not a vanity page. I know him and (1) he is not marginally vain and (2) he is intensely private. - Kittybrewster 02:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Summary to this point
 * Arguments in favour of keep - 22
 * Arguments in favour of keep or redirect- 1
 * Arguments in favour of redirect/merge - 5 (+1 anon)
 * Arguments in favour of delete - 3
 * - Kittybrewster 22:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment, this is a discussion not a vote - you have been involved in "lock step" voting and canvassing before so any AfD that you are involved in needs to be treated with a lot of caution.--Vintagekits 22:43, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. I am indeed - with you it seems. You always argue against my perspective. Stop shadowing me, chum. - Kittybrewster 01:20, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break 3

 * Keep. As many people have pointed out, the baronetage is a part of British society, and a topic people might be interested in, therefore it makes sense to have a comprehensive reference to it available in Wikipedia. There is already a lot more content and more references than in many articles on supposedly more "notable" people.  J Rawle  (Talk) 16:15, 13 March 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.