| Revision as of 00:13, 23 May 2007 editVintagekits (talk | contribs)22,333 edits →[]: base your !vote on policy please← Previous edit | Revision as of 00:20, 23 May 2007 edit undoIridescent (talk | contribs)Administrators402,626 edits ReplyNext edit → | ||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
| *'''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 (). Judge it by the article, not the two primary contributors (who I admit set off warning bells)<font face="Trebuchet MS"> — ] ]</font> 23:58, 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 (). Judge it by the article, not the two primary contributors (who I admit set off warning bells)<font face="Trebuchet MS"> — ] ]</font> 23:58, 22 May 2007 (UTC) | ||
| :*'''Comment''', ONE fleeting mention in a newspaper in FIVE years! Just because it has notable members doesnt make this association notable - what is it notable for? It fails both ], ] and ]--] 00:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC) | :*'''Comment''', ONE fleeting mention in a newspaper in FIVE years! Just because it has notable members doesnt make this association notable - what is it notable for? It fails both ], ] and ]--] 00:01, 23 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 ] ("The scope of activity is national in scale and can be verified by independent sources")<font face="Trebuchet MS"> — ] ]</font> 00:20, 23 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 00:20, 23 May 2007
Hereditary Peerage Association
- Hereditary Peerage Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
Obscure, non-notable substub 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 porven!. 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. Additonally there are only 10 ghits for the association, some of which are for its own webpage.Vintagekits 23:19, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. Its membership makes it notable. - Kittybrewster (talk) 23:44, 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, ONE fleeting mention in a newspaper in FIVE years! Just because it has notable members doesnt make this association notable - what is it notable for? It fails both WP:V, WP:N and WP:CORP--Vintagekits 00:01, 23 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)