Talk:Sir Keith Arbuthnot, 8th Baronet

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article was nominated for deletion on March 7, 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
Stub	This article has been rated as stub-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
	This article is supported by WikiProject Baronetcies.

[edit] Same sources?

You state here that these different sources. What is the difference between that Debrett of 1998 and 2007? and Burkes book and website - these are the same sources--Vintagekits 01:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore I have click on the two web pages you have provided and Sir Keith Arbuthnot does not appear on these pages - why have you listed them?--Vintagekits 01:17, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Great questions. 1 Debrett's Peeerage and Baronetage is a different book from Debrett's Distinguished People of Today. First is red. Second is blue. 2. Burke's is a different publisher. 3. Cracroft's is subscribers only - so become a subscriber and you will find him. Left column. 4. the Peerage is Mr Lundy's site and Sir Keith pops up in front of me when I click the link. Maybe your cache needs clearing. Or your cookies. They all independently confirm notability. - Kittybrewster 02:52, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I have just noticed that each of the references provide each provide the exact same information - pretty much word for word.--Vintagekits 03:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

It would be strange if they provided different information. The point is that they are independant and confirmatory. - Kittybrewster 12:55, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

My point is that they all read exactly the same infact they are all copies of each other, none of the sources provides anymore (or less for that matter) then the other sources. It gives no depth of coverage.--Vintagekits 13:06, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

If all four sources provide the same information then the other three should be removed as they are redundant.--Vintagekits 14:59, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Wrong. - Kittybrewster 15:03, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

"Wrong" doesnt help us here. I articles that I have written, where the information is doubled up/overlaps and all the information can come from one source then the others sources have been removed as being redundant.--Vintagekits 15:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)