Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lord Sempill

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep. Deathphoenix ʕ 06:09, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lord Sempill

• Delete - Where do I start? Not a notable topic, and lists shouldn't be full of red links. I was going to tag it as a stub, but I don't think anything more can be said on this topic. --Quentin Smith 15:29, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

There's a pile of these -

• Baron St John of Bletso
• Baron Clanmorris
• Baron Londesborough

&c. See Special:Ancientpages

--Quentin Smith 15:35, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete this one as a page full of links & no content. The others should be nominated en masse and not appended to this AfD.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  15:46, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn and a repository of links to nowhere. Funnybunny (^talk/_QRVS) 15:58, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, unless there is some doubt that these are real peerage titles. Any peer would have been a member of a legislature, which is a criterion for keeping an individual per WP:BIO, and makes it reasonable to keep these succession lists as well. Tupsharru 17:28, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Good point about WP:BIO criteria, but this article and none of the links on the page contain biographical data. A description of the life of a peer with the title would merit assessment against WP:BIO. As none is currently present, the assessment is invalid.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  20:01, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't believe WP:BIO is the appropriate criteria here. The subject of the article is the peerage itself, not the individuals who have held it. However, if the notability of an individual can be established by holding a position, then wouldn't the position itself be necessarily notable? ScottW 23:00, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and de-wikilink. No point in red links to bios that will never be written, but I think a peerage is, in itself, notable. Fan1967 20:47, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I don't know if all the individuals who have held the peerage are notable, but the peerage itself is. There are enough verifiable references for this. ScottW 21:45, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I've removed the linking, so now it's a plain list. If the article is kept, the links can be added back if anyone should create articles for any of the Sempills. ScottW 21:52, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. Notability not in question. Badgerpatrol 22:36, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as preferable to having individual articles on all of these folks. Stifle (talk) 10:35, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per Stifle. Also, I want to change my name to Baron St. John of Bletso. Hornplease 12:36, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep as per Stifle and also these are, in some cases, historic titles of Scotland and are noteworthy because of their heritage. There should be no question of their nobility, it is the article which requires expansion, not the titles requiring defending.doktorb | words 01:18, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep all articles on peers, peerages, nobility, etc. Consider restoring redlinks, too. Ardric47 03:37, 18 May 2006 (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.