Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hereditary Peerage Association

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. - Bobet 18:13, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hereditary Peerage Association

Hereditary Peerage Association (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (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 wider 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 Say it here! 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 Wikipedia 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)
Comment - it holds regualr events, but only members (who must be hereditary peers or their heirs can attend, they may bring guests - but they too must be hereditary peers)
  • 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.)
As regards, its influence as a "Peers' trade union" and whether we like it or not, the membership of more than 200 seems to have a certain degree of influence within Her Majesty's current Loyal Opposition:[1] 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 Wikipedia. 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 members (many of whom have run large businesses or organisations) 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)
  • 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.--Vintagekits 00:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment If I know your tactics, Vintage, I'm sure the serious squad will be along very shortly. Do we need to wait until they come back from their Wikibreaks? W. Frank ✉ 00:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment, this is not some points scoring excersise - you have attacked my nomination and myself - try basis some analysis on the article in relation to wikipolicy instead - this is a discussion NOT A VOTE. This organisation has ONE reference to it in the real world yet you !vote strong keep - that speaks volumes.--Vintagekits 01:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. Google is not the real world. I presume that you have already read relevant Wiki policy so I can not help you further if you do not understand the comments of others above. Please do not expect others not to attack your sloppy and harassing conduct. [2][3][4] And please be a bit more accurate and less cryptic and formulaic with your edit summaries. It's hardly a "reply" when you (justifiably) delete more than 3000 characters of another user's comments. W. Frank ✉ 01:17, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment The material removed was a paragraph containing historical background to the fact that only some of the Peers now sit in parliament. It does not mention the association [[5]].
  • Comment, Instead of commenting on me would you like to comment (per policy and guidelines) on why this Association is notable.--Vintagekits 11:31, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete unless additional references are provided. As with many organisations, it is notable if people know about it and write about it. At present the only evidence is the Guardian article cited, which mentions it in one short paragraph with a much longer article. Its members, however distinguished, do not make it notable . There have been other articles on aristocratic organisations of one sort or another which are strangely never mentioned in public sources. DGG 02:09, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - It is notable due to its membership, its aims and the fact that it is the only "trade union" for hereditary peers. I would also like to question whether this article was nominated in good faith. Vintage kits made no attempts to improve the article, but was intent on its being nominated, and also made comments such as this; "Read what these these snivellers have to say for themselves", made on User:One Night In Hackney's user page here [6] show his obvious PoV in this area.--Counter-revolutionary 07:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
comment - above Vintagekits says this has one reference. Not true. [7], it is mentioned by the Dept. for Constitutional Affairs etc. Also not all refs. appear on the internet.--Counter-revolutionary 07:03, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Comment - I believe that Vintage's claim, that there is only one reference for the subject, refers to the fact there is only one reference in the article. Under that interpretation, the statement is demonstrably true. In any case, it is good that you're taking the step of trying to find more sources. Now, I would suggest you take a further step: add the source, properly cited, to the article. If multiple sources can be added, as you suggest, then there isn't much reason to delete here. Charlie 08:41, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Comment, Instead of commenting on me would you like to comment (per policy and guidelines) on why this Association is notable.--Vintagekits 11:31, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
comment, unfortunately your reasons for nominating the article seem to be relevant. --Counter-revolutionary 11:38, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Comment, my reasons for nomination are clearly set out in the nomination above and on the articles talk page and are soundly based on wiki policy. If you can not defend the article based on policy and prefer just to attack the nominator and the nomination then that is fine but you are then just losing the argument. This is a discussion not a vote. If there are 100 "keep" !votes and only 1 "delete" !vote then the article can still be deleted as it the the argument you put across that counts not the number of !votes.--Vintagekits 11:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete, another ancient body that as useful as a glass hammer in British politics, won't be around for much longer either. Tiocfaidh Ár Lá! 12:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment, its not that ancient infact it was only founded five years ago and doesnt seem to have done anything since created.--Vintagekits 12:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
So obviously the above "delete" did not even read the article. He also seems to be arguing that he doesn't like it, not that it's not notable. Counter-revolutionary 12:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
I wouldnt disagree with that, however, if you read the "keep" votes - none of them are rooted in policy. I knew that the same old editors would turn up and vote to keep this hopefully once we get through these the unbiased community at large can have their say.--Vintagekits 12:22, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete, more rubbish that has no current purpose to wikipedia or anyone else. the site should contain info that is useful. Maplecelt 13:25, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment - the above user has made only 10 edits, the last contribution was to Sir William Arbuthnot, 2nd Baronet's unsuccesful Afd. It also argues that he doesn't like it, not that it isn't notable. --Counter-revolutionary 13:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Comment "they appear to have been the least effective pressure group of all time": if this statement is even partially accurate then this, by and of itself, is a ground of sufficient notability in the way that Eddy the Eagle (Britain's Olympic Ski Jump competitor) was notable for his failures rather than his achievements.
Actually, the scales have fallen from my eyes and I wish to apologise to Vinny the Vulture. His edits and nominations for deletion really are notably accurate and neutral. W. Frank ✉ 14:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Even if they were the worst "pressure group" in the world that would be fine. What we are missing is multiple non-trivial sources. Please provide this!--Vintagekits 14:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep It's notable organisation due to its membership and their relation to British politics. Nick mallory 15:06, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep: a notable organisation with very notable members, of which we will undoubtedly hear more of their much-heralded legal constitutional challenge goes to the High Court. David Lauder 19:53, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment, wiki is not a crystal ball.--Vintagekits 21:27, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong delete, for the reasons (for keeping) given by User: W.Frank -- irrelevant "pressure group" unrepresentative of any meaningful constituency, fighting a lost cause, in a "country" the size of a pinhead which is daily attacked for crimes against humanity stretching back 4 centuries and more. Even if there was a shred of notability in this (which there isn't), it is such a morass of irrelevancy to the new century as to be utterly unworrthy of Wiki. If the authors love it so much, let them found their own (SPA) Wiki for it. -- SockpuppetSamuelson
Comment - again this is simply a PoV statement of why you don't like it! --Counter-revolutionary 07:30, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Comment:Samuelson is basically telling all comers that Wikipedia is now a communist/socialist/republican site which loathes any other perspective of life. His approach is a disgrace. David Lauder 14:18, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep An organisation formed in response to the single largest constitutional change in Britain in recent years, by and for people who have previously been members or are currently members of the country's upper legislature and are therefore inherently notable. Reliable sources here and here. I don't know what more you want, and while I try to assume good faith I clearly see that the majority of the delete !voters here are driven by their own POV against the cause that this group represents. In response to the original nominator's unsubstantiated suggestion of WP:COI I declare that I am not a member of this group, nor do I know anybody who is a member of this group. JulesH 11:07, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong delete I've waited to see if this has improved, but it has not. There are no non trivial reliable sources that an article can be written from. While The Guardian does cover the association, the coverage is not sufficient for an article to be written from it. The second "source" is nothing of the kind, as this clearly shows the sites are user-submitted. One Night In Hackney303 11:11, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Comment: As a member of the serious squad, you have made a good and valid argument, 303. Unfortunately, if we were to be as rigorous in applying your (traditional) standards of scholarship and only summarise existing secondary sources in print to make an article, the majority of WP articles would be strong candidates for deletion. As I understand the sequence, one begins with the test of notability for a non-profit organisation.
I genuinely believe that the Hereditary Peerage Association is notable according to WP standards. The article is currently a stub and I believe that none of the material included in the article as I saw it when I voted is either controversial or wrong and there are sufficient sources to confirm the existing statements. I have amended my support to a keep on the basis that if we delete this article we should logically then proceed to delete some 720,000 other WP articles (including many of the articles that you personally hold so dear).
Niggles: Please don't edit this page without placing a signature. Please don't edit the comments of others (obvious minor typos excepted). Please don't add or move contributions out of chronological sequence - if each did that, the record and sequence of contributions to this debate would become very difficult to follow. W. Frank ✉ 13:55, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment In my lengthy experience of AfDs, chronological sequence is not always followed. If adding a "keep" or "delete" !vote the comment is added at the bottom, however if a comment replying to another editor is made the comment is placed below that particular comment. To do otherwise would make the debate very difficult to follow. This organisation is not notable according to Wikipedia standards. WP:CORP specifically states that even non-commercial organisations must satisfy the primary notability criterion, in that it has been the subject of multiple reliable secondary sources. At present there is only one such source, and it is insufficient for an encyclopedic article to be written even if one source satisfied notability requirements. Also we are not discussing other articles, we are discussing this article. One Night In Hackney303 14:17, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. The organisation in question was consulted by the Department for Constitutional Affairs with regards to the continued reform of the House of Lords; it thus fulfills a lobbying function, rather than "exist[ing] largely only as a website" [8] [9]. It has been referenced in Parliamentary debates (albeit by a member) [10]. The group itself is small, but the members, for the time being, possess a considerable degree of legislative power. McPhail 14:49, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I'd insist on multiple independent non trivial reliable sources, as required. One Night In Hackney303 20:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
    • It clearly exists - it has a website, people claim membership in debates the House of Lords, it submits responses to consultation papers. Is the complaint that its profile is not high enough? -- ALoan (Talk) 20:23, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. This article seems to scrape through all the tests. First, it clearly meets WP:ORG#Non-commercial_organizations; this is the association of a group of people who elect a sizeable proportion of members of the House of Lords. It is irrelevant whether any editor thinks that arrangement a good or bad thing, but that's how it is, and this body has a position not unlike a sort of unofficial grouping of the majority of members of a parliamentary constituency. As such, it is clearly a group of national scale, albeit not a high-profile one.
    Secondly, there is no dispute that this group exists: we have one good secondary source, and several undisputed primary sources.
    WP:ORG notes that "smaller organizations can be notable, just as individuals can be notable, and arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger organizations." If this was a paper encyclopedia, I doubt that this article would merit as many as five lines, but Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. This is a weak article, but it's not a bad or misleading one, and it's a pity that it seems to have gotten caught up in a political dispute between some editors. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:28, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Still fails WP:V due to lack of multiple independent non trivial sources. Explain your way around that.--Vintagekits 21:47, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps I am being obtuse, but which part of WP:V says that we have to delete articles which lack "multiple independent non trivial sources"? WP:V says "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. ... Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed." So which parts of this article do you think need further verification? Which parts are challenged, or likely to be challenged?
In any event, this article has sources ranging from the organisation's own website (to be treated with circumspection of course, but, to pick an example at random, much of Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists comes from its own website - shall we delete that too?) to Hansard, papers published by the Department for Constitutional Affairs (as was), and The Guardian (all about as copper-bottomed as sources get). -- ALoan (Talk) 22:00, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment a lot of the deletion arguments here are based on the assertion that policy requires there be "multiple non-trivial reliable sources" written about the subject. I would like to draw everyone's attention to the fact that as a result of a challenge as to whether it has consensus or not, WP:N (the source of the assertion that this is required) no longer requires multiple sources, although it does state multiple sources are preferred. However, as the group in question is clearly important due to its membership, I would say that a single source, in this case, is adequate. JulesH 14:22, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment, so what criteria should be judge it by then?--Vintagekits 14:25, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
    • The criteria on WP:N or WP:ORG as they are now, not as they were a couple of weeks ago, would be my suggestion. The standard is requiring reliable sources, preferably multiple. But due to the obviously important nature of a group formed from former and present members of the upper legislature, I think a single source is adequate in this case. JulesH 23:31, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep meets WP:ORG/NGO. The rationale behind the nomination, i.e. is this a republican vs. royalist debate, is irrelevant. Mmoneypenny 20:56, 27 May 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.