Misplaced Pages

:Articles for deletion/Hereditary Peerage Association: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 00:42, 23 May 2007 editVintagekits (talk | contribs)22,333 editsm sp← Previous edit Revision as of 00:45, 23 May 2007 edit undoVintagekits (talk | contribs)22,333 edits →[]: replyNext edit →
Line 13: Line 13:
*'''Strong Keep'''. Google can not be the arbiter of notability for the subjects of articles that do not have a cyberspace focus. <br /> *'''Strong Keep'''. Google can not be the arbiter of notability for the subjects of articles that do not have a cyberspace focus. <br />
The HPA is notable for the size of its membership and the members political influence within the United Kingdom (since if it is indeed a "pressure group", its notability is largely determined by the influence of its members.<br /> The HPA is notable for the size of its membership and the members political influence within the United Kingdom (since if it is indeed a "pressure group", its notability is largely determined by the influence of its members.<br />
In this regard, and whether we like it or not, the membership seem to have a certain degree of influence within Her Majesty's current Loyal Opposition: and includes at least one member of the ] ). This is a bad faith nomination by a sloppy User who can not be bothered to even proof read his own nomination and only wishes to harass and expel editors with a different political viewpoint to his own minority political view point rather than improve Misplaced Pages. I note again the nominating User's bad faith technique of deleting material in the nominated article (without prior consensus or discussion on the article's talk page) so that he can then justify deletion of the shrunken stub article as non notable. I personally find it difficult to believe that In this regard, and whether we like it or not, the membership seem to have a certain degree of influence within Her Majesty's current Loyal Opposition: and includes at least one member of the ] ). This is a bad faith nomination by a sloppy User who can not be bothered to even proof read his own nomination and only wishes to harass and expel editors with a different political viewpoint to his own minority political view point rather than improve Misplaced Pages. I note again the nominating User's bad faith technique of deleting material in the nominated article (without prior consensus or discussion on the article's talk page) so that he can then justify deletion of the shrunken stub article as non notable. I personally find it difficult to believe that would each be conned into paying £15 for annual membership of something that "seems to exist largely only as a website" and that this amazing confidence trick should continue for 5 years. ''']''' ] 00:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Abinger, Lord

Ailesbury, Marquis of

Aldenham, Lord

Alexander of Tunis, Earl

Anglesey, Marquis of

Arlington, Lady

Ashbourne, Lord

Aylesford, Earl of

Balfour of Inchrye, Lord

Balfour, Earl of

Bathurst, Earl

Bellhaven and Stenton, Lord

Berners, Baroness

Bessborough, Earl of

Bethell, Lord, MEP

Bicester, Lord

Biddulph, Lord

Birdwood, Lord

Bradford, Earl of

Brassey of Apethorpe, Lord

Braye, Baroness

Brentford, Viscount

Bristol, Marquess of

Brooke and Warwick, Earl

Brownlow, Lord

Buchan, Earl of

Buckinghamshire, Earl of

Cadman, Lord

Calverley, Lord

Camden, Marquess of

Carnock, Lord

Chatfield, Lord

Chesham, Lord

Chorley, Lord

Clifford of Chudleigh, Lord

Clinton, Lord

Clitheroe, Lord

Clwyd, Lord

Coleraine, Lord

Colgrain, Lord

Combermere, Viscount

Conyngham, Marquis of

Cornwallis, Lord

Cottesloe, Lord

Coventry, Earl of

Cowdray, Viscount

Cowley, Earl

Cranbrook, Earl of

Crawshaw, Lord

Cromer, Earl of

Cross, Viscount

de Clifford, Lord

de Freyne, Lord

de Mauley, Lord

de la Warr, Earl of

Deramore, Lord

Derby, Earl of

Devonport, Viscount

Devonshire, Duke of

Dormer, Lord

Dundee, Earl of

Dunmore, Earl of

Ellenborough, Lord

Elphinstone, Lord

Erroll, Earl of

Fairhaven, Lord

Feversham, Lord

Fisher, Lord

Foley, Lord

Fortescue, Earl of

Gage, Viscount

Gainford, Lord

Gainsborough, Earl of

Gisborough, Lord

Gladwyn, Lord

Glanusk, Lord

Gorell, Lord

Grantley, Lord

Grey of Codnor, Lord

Guernsey, Lord

Haddington, Earl of

Haig, Earl, OBE, DL

Halifax, Earl of

Hamilton of Dalzell, DL

Hampton, Lord

Harlech, Lord

Harrington, Earl of

Harvey of Tasburgh, Lord

Hawke, Lord TD

Hazlerigg, Lord,MC, TD, DL

Headfort, Marquess of

Hemmingford, Lord

Hill, Viscount

Hives, Lord

Hollenden, Lord

Iddesleigh, Earl of, DL

Ilchester, Earl of

Iliffe, Lord

Inchcape, Earl of

Iveagh, Earl of

Jersey, Earl of

Kennet, Lord

Kilmaine, Lord

Kimberley, Earl of

Kindersley, Lord, DL

Kinross, Lord

Kirkwood, Lord

Kitchener of Khartoum, Earl

Lauderdale, Earl of

Lichfield, Earl of

Lifford, Viscount

Limerick, Earl of, KBE DL

Lindsay of Birker, Lord

Lindsey & Abingdon, Earl of

Lonsdale, Earl of

Lytton, Earl of

Macpherson, Lord

Malmsbury, Earl of

Marlborough, Duke of

Massereene and Ferrard, Viscount

McNair, Lord

Melville, Viscount

Mersey, Viscount

Meston, Lord

Mills, Viscount

Milverton, Lord, Rev.

Monckton of Brenchley, Lord

Moncreiff, Lord

Monk Bretton, Lord

Monteagle of Brandon, Lord

Montgomery of Alamein, Viscount

Montrose, Duke of

Morton, Earl of

Mottistone, Lord

Napier of Magdala, Lord

Nathan, Lord

Nelson of Stafford, Lord

Newall, Lord

Norrie, Lord

Northbrook, Lord

Norton, Lord

Oaksey, Lord

Ogmore, Lord

Palmer, Lord

Pender, Lord

Penrhyn, Lord, DSO, MBE

Phillimore, Lord

Portland, Earl of

Portsmouth Earl of

Rankeillour, Lord

Remnant, Lord, CVO

Renwick, Lord

Ridley, Viscount, KG, GCVO, TD

Ritchie of Dundee, Lord

Robertson of Oakbridge, Lord

Rodney, Lord

Rollo, Lord

Romney, Earl of

Rowallan, Lord

Saltoun of Abernethy, Lady

Sandys, Lord

Seaford, Lord

Shannon, Earl of

Shaughnessy, Lord

Somerleyton, Lord

Somerset, Duke of

St Oswald, Lord

Stafford, Lord

Stamp, Lord

Stanley of Alderley, Lord

Stockton, Earl of

Strathcarron, Lord

Sudeley, Lord

Suffolk & Berkshire, Earl of

Swansea, Lord

Swinton, Earl of

Teviot, Lord

Torrington, Viscount

Townshend, Marquess of

Trenchard, Viscount

Tryon, Lord

Tweedsmuir, Lord

Vestey, Lord, DL

Vivian, Lord

Walsingham, Lord, MC

Weir, Viscount

Wemyss and March, Earl of, KT

Westmorland, Earl of

Willoughby de Eresby, Lady

Wimborne, Viscount

Wise , Lord

Wrenbury, Rev Lord

Wynford, Lord, Lt-Col MBE DL

Yarborough, Earl of

would each be conned into paying £15 for annual membership of something that "seems to exist largely only as a website" and that this amazing confidence trick should continue for 5 years. ''']''' ] 00:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


*'''Comment''' Could you make that reply a bit longer, please?<font face="Trebuchet MS"> — ] ]</font> 00:33, 23 May 2007 (UTC) *'''Comment''' Could you make that reply a bit longer, please?<font face="Trebuchet MS"> — ] ]</font> 00:33, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
*'''Comment''', is that your reason for a "strong keep". This is an AfD nomination not a joke = please try and take it more serious in future.--] 00:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Revision as of 00:45, 23 May 2007

Hereditary Peerage Association

Hereditary Peerage Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Obscure, non-notable stub on tiny UK pressure group that seems to exist largely only as a website. I did try and discuss the notability but was basically told to did it myself if I wanted notability proven!. This society reminds me a lot of the Federal Commonwealth Society and I am sure those same editors who have WP:COI issues will turn up here. I would prefer if the wiki community that is not conflicted would determine the notability. Additionally there are only 10 ghits for the association, some of which are for its own webpage and only ONE mention in a reliable source here in the FIVE years that it has been in existence, therefore fails WP:N, WP:V and {{WP:CORP]] .Vintagekits 23:19, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment - no comment!--Vintagekits 23:49, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Per Kittybrewster. --Random 23:54, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep (god help me). It is a genuine body, and while by definition it's only going to have 92 members, those 92 are all notable (right or wrong) by Misplaced Pages standards, and by virtue of who they are it's more likely to have an impact as an organisation than your typical club. It does get (some) independent non-trivial coverage (for example). Judge it by the article, not the two primary contributors (who I admit set off warning bells) — iridescenti (talk to me!) 23:58, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Certainly not a strong keep & I wouldn't lose any sleep if it were to go (they certainly don't seem to have accomplished anything), but since presumably they'll be the source for talking heads come the final push against the Lords by Labour once Tony goes/restoration of the old system under the Tories (delete as appropriate), I think warrants keeping. I certainly agree that they appear to have been the least effective pressure group of all time. However, I do think they (just) meet WP:ORG#Non-commercial_organizations ("The scope of activity is national in scale and can be verified by independent sources") — iridescenti (talk to me!) 00:20, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Complete nonsense - it needs multiple non trivial sources - its doesnt have this - but ignoring that it has never done anything!--Vintagekits 00:29, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. Google can not be the arbiter of notability for the subjects of articles that do not have a cyberspace focus.

The HPA is notable for the size of its membership and the members political influence within the United Kingdom (since if it is indeed a "pressure group", its notability is largely determined by the influence of its members.
In this regard, and whether we like it or not, the membership seem to have a certain degree of influence within Her Majesty's current Loyal Opposition: and includes at least one member of the European Parliament ). This is a bad faith nomination by a sloppy User who can not be bothered to even proof read his own nomination and only wishes to harass and expel editors with a different political viewpoint to his own minority political view point rather than improve Misplaced Pages. I note again the nominating User's bad faith technique of deleting material in the nominated article (without prior consensus or discussion on the article's talk page) so that he can then justify deletion of the shrunken stub article as non notable. I personally find it difficult to believe that its membership would each be conned into paying £15 for annual membership of something that "seems to exist largely only as a website" and that this amazing confidence trick should continue for 5 years. W. Frank ✉ 00:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Categories: