Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Cavendish, 5th Duke of Devonshire


 * 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   Speedy keep. The subject is clearly notable. DrKiernan (talk) 07:09, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

William Cavendish, 5th Duke of Devonshire

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Biography of a non-notable subject. This is a family history of a man who "is best known for his first wife" and his notable ancestors, but "being related to a notable person in itself confers no degree of notability." A navigation box credits him as Lord Treasurer of Ireland but as his tenure was apparently unremarkable the article Lord High Treasurer of Ireland is sufficiently descriptive. Fails WP:BIO, WP:GNG. Yappy2bhere (talk) 23:15, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * OpposeThe offices of Lord Treasurer of Ireland and Lord Lieutenant of Derbyshire are sufficient for notability in my opinion. This is one of a large number of articles which the nominator redirected, and which have been reverted. DuncanHill (talk) 23:18, 29 April 2010 (UTC) I will add that he is considered notable enough for an article in the ODNB. Michael Durban, ‘Cavendish, William, fifth duke of Devonshire (1748–1811)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, 2004 accessed 30 April 2010. DuncanHill (talk) 23:22, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. He was a significant political figure, and is clearly notable.  The Dukes of Devonshire were one of the richest and most prominent families in Britain in the eighteenth and nineteenth century, and I'd say that virtually every holder of the title is going to have enough written about them to make them notable.  Note that the ODNB entry includes a bibliography with a number of works that deal in some detail with the duke.  ETA: notability is not earned by merit; it is conferred when a subject is written about in reliable secondary sources.  Inclusion in the ODNB is prima facie evidence of notability.  No further discussion is really needed. john k (talk) 23:30, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It begs the question to say that he was a member of a prominent family, and if every peer is represented in the ODNB no matter how lackluster his life then clearly inclusion in the ODNB is insufficient to establish notability. WP doesn't permit articles on just any Tom, Dick, or Harry. Yappy2bhere (talk) 01:14, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The ODNB does not by a long chalk include every peer. This fellow, far from being any Tom, Dick or Harry was three times invited to join the cabinet, and held high office in the government of Ireland. DuncanHill (talk) 01:18, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * As Duncan says, the ODNB does not at all include all peers. For that matter, it doesn't even include all cabinet members (the 5th duke's grandfather, for instance, served in some cabinets but doesn't get an article in the ODNB).  It describes itself as "a collection of more than 57,000 specially written biographies, which describe the lives of people who shaped the history of the British Isles and beyond from the 4th century BC to the 21st century."  OUP is pretty clearly claiming that everyone in the ODNB is notable (they even use the word "noteworthy" to describe its subjects.) john k (talk) 21:25, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * According to User:John Kenney "virtually every holder of the title is going to have enough written about them to make them notable." The title may be notable even when the man to whom it belongs is not. I don't dispute the notability of the title. I dispute the notability of the man. Yappy2bhere (talk) 01:25, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you even understand what notability is? Notability means that somebody has been noted - that reliable sources have written about them.  That's all.  Reliable sources have clearly written about the 5th Duke of Devonshire - the ODNB is probably the easiest example to cite. john k (talk) 21:25, 30 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment No doubt this individual is included in sundry lists of British births, but you might as well introduce parish birth records as publications establishing notability. That is, they don't. Yappy2bhere (talk) 23:40, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You are very good at arguing with straw men. For other users, I'd note that Yappy doesn't seem to have a very good grasp of notability guidelines; he apparently thought that a British prime minister was non-notable. john k (talk) 23:41, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment dismissing the ODNB as a "sundry list of British births" displays either astonishing ignorance or a bad-faith attempt to misrepresent the evidence of notability that has been produced. DuncanHill (talk) 23:43, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, is that what he was doing? The ODNB is a biographical encyclopedia of notable figures from British history.  It is not a "sundry listing of British births."  john k (talk) 23:45, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * ""The 5th Duke is best known for his first wife." I described that source fairly and accurately. Yappy2bhere (talk) 01:01, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't understand your point. Jacqueline Kennedy is best known for her first husband.  That doesn't make her non-notable.  And what does that have to do with the ODNB? john k (talk) 21:25, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * As that phrase appears nowhere in the ODNB entry referred to, I am forced to assume that you are deliberately lying in an attempt to disrupt Wikipedia. DuncanHill (talk) 01:10, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you mean to say that the ODNB entry substantively differs from the WP article? Please elaborate, or else apologize. Yappy2bhere (talk) 01:16, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You haven't bothered to read it before dismissing it as a parish register? I can email you a copy if you provide me with your email address, alternatively you can access it yourself if you have a library card from a British local authority. Many public libraries around the world will also have access. DuncanHill (talk) 01:20, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps simpler is better: the ODNB account doesn't differ substantively from the WP article. Read it yourself. Yappy2bhere (talk) 01:30, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I have read it - and unlike you I'm not lying about what it says. Did you notice the three invitations to join the cabinet? You've made a series of lousy redirects which were undone, and you're trying to salvage some pride by bringing one of them to AfD, but your nomination is without merit and in bad faith. Stop painting yourself into a corner. The man is notable - the Lord High Treasurer is enough on its own for that. The entry in ODNB is enough evidence from secondary sources. Three invitaions to join the cabinet are enough. DuncanHill (talk) 01:35, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Your ad hominem attacks and personal abuse are not helpful. Please address yourself to the topic directly. Yappy2bhere (talk) 01:42, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I have done so above. Now, have you actually read the ODNB article which you claimed to have "described fairly and accurately"? I repeat my offer to email it to you. DuncanHill (talk) 01:46, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Not necessary. What I ask, again, is that you explain how that account substantively differs from the summary I quoted. He married well, but was he otherwise remarkable? Yappy2bhere (talk) 01:54, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * What difference does it make whether he was "remarkable." The point is that there's a 1500 word article (that is, about 6 pages) about him in the principal reference work of British biography.  He has been remarked upon, and is thus notable. He was lazy and untalented and not particularly ambitious.  So what?  That's not what notability is about.  We're not judging his merit as a human being, just whether he is the subject of discussion in reliable secondary sources.  He obviously is. john k (talk) 21:25, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * He was Lord High Treasurer of Ireland. He was Governor of Cork. He was Lord Lieutenant of Derbyshire. He was asked on three separate occasions to join the Cabinet. You are refusing to read a reliable reference establishing notability (a work that was awarded the Dartmouth Medal). You claimed to have described that reference accurately when you had not read it. DuncanHill (talk) 01:59, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The office of Lord High Treasurer of Ireland doesn't appear to confer notability on the officeholder. Perhaps the same is true of appointment as Governor of Cork. Lord Lieutenant of Derbyshire is a vanity title, listed as such at the end of this man's article. So, your answer seems to be that the summary I quoted is consonant with the account in the ODNB. Yappy2bhere (talk) 02:15, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Being the principal financial officer of the government is enough to confer notability. In his era, Lord Lieutenancies were not "vanity titles" (they aren't that nowadays), he commanded the county militia (and he took the duties seriously, as you would know if you took me up on my still-standing offer to email it to you). My answer is that your "summary" of an article you are too stubborn or lazy to read for yourself is deceitful and dishonest and disruptive. You are trolling. Stop it. DuncanHill (talk) 02:18, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I caution you again, refrain from personal attacks. Feel free to quote from the article for the benefit of all editors; no need for you to illegally distribute a copyrighted work. Otherwise, refrain from insinuating what can't be demonstrated from the text. The list of Lord High Treasurer of Ireland includes very few individuals with WP articles, which I take to mean that holding the office is not prima facie notable. Lord Lieutenant of Derbyshire is deemed an "Honorary title" in this article; whether or not "he took the duties seriously" is beside the point. I don't know what his duties were as Governor of Cork. Do you? Yappy2bhere (talk) 03:12, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not illegal to send someone a copy of an ODNB article, as far as I'm aware. It would pretty clearly constitute fair use, just like it would be fair use if I xeroxed it and gave it to a class I was teaching as a reading assignment. Beyond that, I fail to understand your point.  Is it that the 5th Duke didn't have any monumental accomplishments?  This is true, I suppose.  But not-having-monumental-accomplishments is not a synonym for non-notable.  Because of his title and family background, he was an important Whig political figure for a generation.  The fact that he is notable because he inherited lands and titles and a sense of himself as guardian of the Whig political tradition from his father does not mean that he is not notable.  A subject can be notable for all kinds of reasons - as I said before, personal merit is not a requirement. john k (talk) 21:25, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Not only is it not illegal to email someone a copy of an ODNB article, it is actually enabled and encouraged by ODNB through the "email this article" link on every biographical article. DuncanHill (talk) 21:29, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, of course. Clearly meets notability guidelines, since he has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. This sort of nomination is unamusing "performance art" that just wastes everyone's time. - Nunh-huh 01:44, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Keep. Most definitely keep. It is blindingly obvious that the subject meets WP:N and WP:POLITICIAN as he was a Duke, a Lord High Treasurer of Ireland and a Lord Lieutenant. Furthermore it's a well-written researched and referenced article that adds value to Wikipedia - in fact, it is exactly the sort of article Wikipedia should include. To suggest its deletion is perverse; what possible justification is there to allege it fails WP:GNG? Nominating for deletion is borderline WP:VAN IMO and the nominator is clearly following some destructive agenda of his/her own Andy F (talk) 06:19, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep because he passes WP:POLITICIAN. A nineteenth-century British duke would have been a member of the House of Lords and thus a member of a national legislature.  Nyttend (talk) 04:23, 30 April 2010 (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.