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. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:52, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hugh Barrett-Lennard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

per WP:Notability esp. notability is not inherited; priest, army captain; nice chatty little article quite at home on a genealogy site but we do not require an article on him or thousands of his ilk. Baronets are not nobility and do not sneak in as MPs. Crusoe8181 (talk) 12:01, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Why doesn't he satisfy WP:GNG? You haven't discussed the sources at all. His obituary in the Daily Telegraph seems significant, plus coverage in Burke's peerage. postdlf (talk) 14:31, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep meets WP:GNG per Telegraph coverage (and Who's Who, and elsewhere). Clearly not a privacy invasion (he's dead). He receives a few WP:NPOINTS for inheriting a baronetcy, the other things add to that to give a keep package. Barney the barney barney (talk) 17:01, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. No, his relatively junior military and religious posts wouldn't automatically qualify him for an article, but having an obituary in a major daily newspaper most certainly does. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:39, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment (by nominator) He had an obit in the DT because the DT published obits of titled personages however inconsequential such a personage may have been; the obit being dutifully supplied by the family with such omissions and inclusions as were deemed necessary Crusoe8181 (talk) 11:03, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • That doesn't read to me like a family-supplied obit, but rather one contributed by staff. postdlf (talk) 15:36, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Absolutely. It's a full-length obit, not just a short notice of death. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:50, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- It is my understanding that the British broadsheet newspapers have obituaries written for them by staff reporters or commissioned from external authors well in advance of the death. I am not clear to what extent these are produced by interviewing the subject and to what extent his friends. However, this is clearly counts as WP:RS, even though not everything that appears in the newspapers is correct. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:42, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete People have to do something notable to be notable,, with a limited exception for a few traditional figures like members of royal families. and the few best known socialites who become famous as such. Very few newspapers have standards for obits which would amount to automatic notability. I'd accept the NYT and The Times; if this is representative, I don't accept the Telegraph. "Major national newspapers" is much too broad a criterion for this. Anyone related to nobility gets in Burke's--it's indiscriminate. Who'sWho is the classic example of a source that does not count for notability , though the UK version is just a little more discriminating than the American. DGG ( talk ) 00:39, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not really. There are no more than half a dozen (at most) major national newspapers in the United Kingdom which publish proper obituaries. He will not have a full obituary in such a newspaper merely for being a baronet or peer - they are far more discriminating than that. Does an entry in the British Who's Who count for automatic notability? No it doesn't, but it's a pretty good indicator that someone who's included may very well be notable (and I acknowledge that all baronets and peers are included, so that is less an issue here). And unlike many other publications of the same name (and contrary to what many who are used to those publications seem to believe), it is not a vanity publication, but a respected reference work which does not charge those who are included or solicit or accept applications to be included. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:57, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There is a generally accepted heirarchy of national newspapers in the UK, and The Daily Telegraph, along with The Guardian, The Independent and The Times and their Sunday stablemates, sits in the top rank, meaning that we should accept an obituary as conclusive evidence of notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:45, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Yes, those major London newspapers, and I'd also include regional newspapers with a national outlook, i.e. Yorkshire Post [1], Belfast Telegraph (e.g. [2] [3], The Scotsman [4], Glasgow Herald [5] (and any other I've overlooked). Barney the barney barney (talk) 22:01, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There is sufficient here to persuade me that he was notable at the time, whatever the reasons. The argument that a person has to do something notable to be notable is fraught with difficulties, because it is clearly possible to be famous for being famous. And it conflicts with the rule that notability in the past is sufficient for WP notability now, since ideas of celebrity and the reasons for it change over time. Take Lady Curzon, somebody who arguably did little except marry the right man, give dinner parties and offer advice and opinions. Yet she made an enormous impression on many of those she encountered and the present article fails to do justice to her fame and influence. I would argue too that the less they are remembered today, the more valuable an WP article, because when we find them mentioned in literature or old documents the greater the need to look them up. Notability is a measure of whether we are likely to to find such past references. --AJHingston (talk) 15:59, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.