Revision as of 00:29, 23 May 2007 editVintagekits (talk | contribs)22,333 edits →[]: reply← Previous edit | Revision as of 00:33, 23 May 2007 edit undoIridescent (talk | contribs)Administrators402,626 edits →[]: CNext edit → | ||
Line 404: | Line 404: | ||
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) | 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) |
Revision as of 00:33, 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)
- 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
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. W. Frank ✉ 00:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Could you make that reply a bit longer, please? — iridescenti (talk to me!) 00:33, 23 May 2007 (UTC)