Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sir Nicholas Nuttall, 3rd Baronet

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:19, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nicholas Nuttall

Nicholas Nuttall (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

A non notable British peer with no claim to an encyclopedia article. unsourced and unfounded Princess Pea Face 23:48, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep Far from being unsourced the article contains three decent sources. --John 00:22, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment, John is correct, it does contain sources, however, what in thoses sources of information make him notable?--Vintagekits 11:04, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - Well sourced and as a UK Peer I'd have thought he was automatically notable. Ben W Bell talk 03:20, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment, actually I dont think that is correct and he is not a member of the peerage and never sat in the House of Lords which is the reason that makes members of the peerage notable. Can someone provide a source that he was a peer, if not he is looking shakey.--Vintagekits 11:04, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - Whether you agree with system or not, peerage is part of the national leadership, and that makes him automatically notable. I'm wondering about this nom, though...there were four sources clearly listed at the time Princess nominated it with the comment "unsourced". Either Princess just overlooked things, in which case she needs to be more careful when doing AfDs, or she's not being completely honest. I'll assume good faith, and assume it was for the former...hopefully her future AfDs won't be so problematic. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 03:54, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment, again your "keep" !vote rationale is flawed for the same reason that Ben's is - this individual was never a peer. Unlike the AfD on the Baron which Princess also nominated, where I voted to "keep" because there is a much higher chance he was a peer I am leaning towards delete at the moment because he is not a 1st Baronet and there is no asertion to notability, however, I will wait a few days first to see if anything more is added that may change that.--Vintagekits 11:04, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Baronets are not inherently notable, and a few obituaries and a directory listing in a peerage book do not satisfy WP:N. Edison 04:13, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Nuttall Baronets. The Baronetcy is the notable thing. I'd suggest some content from the NN article could be placed in the NB article. --Tagishsimon (talk) 11:39, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

God, you could at least notify the person who wrote the bloody article - I don't watchlist, and it is only by chance that I noticed this.

No, he was not a peer, just a baronet. But so what? There are reams of notable elements to his life.

  • He was a baronet. Not notable, of itself, perhaps; but there are not that many baronets.
  • The article used to mention the history of his family's civil engineering business, which he ran for many years, but someone thought it was duplicative. Shrug. He owned Edmund Nuttall from the age of 8, and later ran it when it was involved in building the Dartford Tunnel and the Tyne Tunnel.
  • Comprehensive obituaries were published in two British broadsheet newspapers - a distinction accorded to few. The details of his romantic entanglements in the Telegraph obit are quite entertaining, but not, I admit, that notable or encyclopedic.
  • He was involved in marine conservation in the Bahamas. The Times obituary says that he "set up the Bahamas Reef Environment Educational Foundation (Breef). During the next 25 years he transformed almost single-handedly local attitudes to maritime conservation... Few others have contributed as much to the islands’ future wellbeing." The Nassau Guardian called him a "prominent local environmentalist ... at the forefront of a number of important marine conservation initiatives and environmental causes". But that was in the Bahamas, so clearly of no interest to our readers in Northern Ireland and the US. No doubt it would be much more notable if he had counted butterflies in County Antrim.
  • It has in-links from Miranda Macmillan, Countess of Stockton, Edmund Nuttall and Nuttall Baronets.

I don't see how this can be merged into Nuttall Baronets without throwing most of it away.

If this is deleted, I invite you to review the 40 odd other articles I have written, mostly from scratch, for WP:DYK and tell me which of them you want to delete too. Perhaps Leonard Miall, "just" a BBC executive? Ian Anstruther, another baronet (and so inherently non-notable, it seems). Ion Calvocoressi, "just" an Army officer and stockbroker? The list goes on.

Incidentally, User:Vintagekits recently moved it from Sir Nicholas Nuttall, 3rd Baronet to Nicholas Nuttall, creating a double redirect that he has not bothered to correct. -- !! ?? 15:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment, actually I think if you look at my edit history that you will see I didnt move some of the redirects. I would be interested to hear why you change the name of the article without necessity - anyway that is a side point.
"No, he was not a peer, just a baronet. But so what?" - the so what is that members of the Peerage usually get to sit in the House of Lords - its is for this reason and no other reason that they are given automatic notability - Baronets do not get a seat in the HoL, therefore do not gain automatic notability.
All the rest of the items outlined are laudable and grand indeed - but from my perspective not notable and in many cases purely honourary.
I actually think that Tagishsimon's suggestion that it is redirected to Nuttall Baronets is a good idea and wold work along similar lines that the Stronge Baronets article works.--Vintagekits 16:57, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
You said: "I didnt move some of the redirects"? I'm sorry; I don't follow.
(Incidentally, you said, on 12 August, "I am moving this page" but it took you a while to get around to it.)
You seem to be quite keen on moving pages - probably for very good reasons; with these baronet articles, there are often good reasons to preemptively disambiguate - but not so keen on fixing the mess of redirects left behind. The same thing happened when you moved Ian Anstruther some time ago, as I commented on the talk page at the time.
Anyway, back to this article: those quotations from his obituaries make him sound rather notable in Barbados to me. How many "laudable and grand" activities must a person undertake before they are notable?
If you were to merge this into Nuttall Baronets, how much would you keep in the bullet point allocated to this person? -- !! ?? 17:28, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Comment, I took my time over moving it because I wanted to hear if there was a decent argument against it - I thought that that was fair enough - dont you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vintagekits (talk • contribs) 17:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Far better than the phonebook entries we have on some baronets, multiple non-trivial sources. Plus his son is a a very interesting character, so I hope he's going to be notable enough for an article at some point ;) One Night In Hackney303 17:59, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment, I wouldnt disagree that it is a lot better than some of tha fare dished up in the guise of Baronet telephone entry articles but I doubt it pushes it over the line. --Vintagekits 18:16, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Multiple, independent, reliable sources attest that he owned an important company and was a significant conservationist in the Bahamas. Clearly passes WP:N which doesn't have any sort of "delete baronets" criteria. Since when are obits in national newspapers disqualified from being reliable sources as Edison seems to be arguing above? --JayHenry 20:26, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep A well-researched article which clearly demonstrates the subject's notability. Jack1956 21:14, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Three substantial obituaries in major newspapers clearly establish notability. This is a well-researched and well-written article, and I'm surprised to see it nominated for deletion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:26, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
    • If you're surprised to see in nom'ed, consider that on the nominator's user page she says "I support a free and socialist republic in Ireland and Britain". This nom sounds like an anti-establishment political statment more than anything. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 21:38, 8 November 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.