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 delete. Daniel (talk) 22:58, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rupert Law, 9th Baron Ellenborough (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Baroncruft. A low-ranking officer with an unremarkable business career, no evidence of any notability. We don't have articles about French, Italian, Russian, German or Spanish people simply for having inherited the (relatively low-ranking) title of "baron" or being "sons of barons" (sic!). Tataral (talk) 22:13, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:37, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:37, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• comment not an expert, but does this level of peerage convey membership of the House of Lords? If not then I have no problem with the motion that it is not inherently notable. Artw (talk) 00:05, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • He's not and has never been a member of the house of lords (or any other political body).[1] --Tataral (talk) 00:36, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • As of the House of Lords Act 1999 those with newly inherited hereditary peerages are no longer entitle to sit in the House of Lords. Vladimir.copic (talk) 01:52, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete peerages may be inherited but notability is not. Neither his title nor family make him inherently notable as per WP:BIOFAMILY. No coverage of Law himself anywhere that I can find. Vladimir.copic (talk) 02:09, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep The aristocracy of the United Kingdom is of inherent interest to a great many people in the United Kingdom and globally. A simple review of the number of articles on the British Nobility on Wikipedia will confirm the same.

In the interests of full disclosure, I can confirm I am the creator of the article.

This particular article is important as it brings the Ellenborough Baronecy up to the present day and allows readers to consider the passage of the title from its origins to today with suitable ancillary biographical information provided for context. Further, aspects of the aristocracy are under review in the UK - e.g. the whether or not male primogeniture should be permitted - see ^[1] and being able to see who the present peers are will be of benefit to those for and against the motion.

I now address the points made above in turn:

Tataral states "a low ranking officer", "unremarkable business career" and "no evidence of notability" and also argues no Russian, German or Spanish nobility have articles "simply for having inherited the title of "baron".

Taking the last point first, no Russian, German or Spanish are entitled to be elected to the House of Lords (or their equivalents). They do not hold subsisting Royal patents and are therefore almost all symbolic. Not so, in the United Kingdom. The present Lord Ellenborough has "proved" his title to the satisfaction of the College of Arms - see ^[2].

The present Lord Ellenborough is also capable of standing for election to the House of Lords - see ^[3][4] Vladimir.copic is incorrect on this point.

As to the comments as to the present Lord Ellenborough's career, as above, the details are included as ancillary context to the incumbent peer's position and it will be of interest to many accordingly. I note the page has been viewed 144 times since I created it.

The inclusion of this biography draws upon the information from Debrett's Peerage and Baronetage - itself one of the oldest forms of biographical dictionary in the world. It also forms part/completes the Baron Ellenborough stub.

I note Tataral is by her own omission on her Talk sometimes described as "an extreme leftist who will stop at nothing to to deny those who disagree with them political power". This being the case she is unlikely to have any interest in the British Aristocracy. Please refer to "When to not use deletion process" and specifically "some topics are of interest to some people, but since Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, articles that interest some people should be kept."

I would welcome suggestions to improve the article but I feel strongly that it should not be deleted. I invite other Wikipedians to comment. Looking glass 563621 (talk) 22:37, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

None of your comments address the notability of the subject. The article does not demonstrate him to be notable. Your personal attack on me is completely irrelevant, and your quote about me supposedly being an "extreme leftist" is taken completely out of context, from a comment where I explained my centrist position, in the context of years-long debates and struggles with pro-Trump editors in Trump administration related articles. Those are the ones prone to view a European centrist and liberal as an "extreme leftist". Also, I believe the consensus on this project is that being technically "capable of standing for election" doesn't make someone notable. You have to either be elected or at least be viewed by reliable sources as a leading/credible contender. I'm capable of standing for election to many political offices in France. --Tataral (talk) 12:01, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This in no way demonstrates the page’s notability or gives sources to demonstrate notability. Please see WP:POLITICIAN as being an unelected candidate for political office does not confer notability. I stand by my point that Law is not entitle to sit in the House of Lords. If being “capable of standing for election” to the House of Lords is the same as being entitled to a parliamentary seat then I suppose I am entitled to a seat in the House of Commons seeing as I am capable of standing for election ^[5]. There are plenty of Wikipedia pages detailing peerages in the United Kingdom and British nobility so it is difficult to claim this page is required for these reasons. The subsequent history of the Ellenborough Baronacy is given on the Baron Ellenborough page for any who are interested if this page is deleted. Vladimir.copic (talk) 13:53, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it, there are around a thousand people who have inherited noble titles but who haven't been appointed or elected to the House of Lords. Occasionally there is an "election" whereby someone with a title inherited from an ancestor (as opposed to having any accomplishments of their own) may be "elected" to the House of Lords. It seems to me that this "election" to a body with very little real influence is pretty much a non-event as far as RS are concerned. I've never seen any coverage of such "elections", I've never seen the elections themselves treated as very important, in the way that elections to the House of Commons are. It would seem reasonable to only treat those who are in fact elected as notable in this case. Had the election in itself been considered important in RS, then perhaps the two or three leading contenders would also have been notable by virtue of their participation in the election. But treating a thousand obscure people who aren't even mentioned in connection with the elecion as notable merely due to having a title such as baron and hypothetically being able to stand for election would be absurd, and yet another example of the ridiculous emphasis on fancruft on minor British aristocrats on this project (for comparison, there is currently an ongoing discussion over possibly deleting a prince, the son of the former Greek king, while we have a thousand articles about British "sons of barons"). --Tataral (talk) 15:30, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tataral - my commentary on your political leanings was not a personal attack; I was quoting from your talk page! However, your analysis (and Copic’s) as to what is “notable” is profoundly subjective. As such your motive is relevant. The commentary that the article is “ yet another example of the ridiculous emphasis on fancruft on minor British aristocrats on this project” is unnecessary and a seemingly xenophobic - and further suggests political cancelling g at work. The argument is also self-defeating as you concede “ we have a thousand articles about British "sons of barons”… indicating they are still profoundly interesting. My central point is that the subject is notable and the article IS of interest to SOME, if not to you. I know this as an Englishman. The article is well-referenced from an encyclopaedia which predates Wikipedia by 100s of years. Why should it be deleted? I also note you have submitted a lot of articles for deletion. As to the commentary about no coverage of Heriditary peerage elections - that is patently false in the Uk. See for example the commentary in the National Press this month about Tony Ben’s son taking his seat in the Lords. Looking glass 563621 (talk) 22:53, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Looking glass 563621: at the end of a week someone we call a closing administrator will have a look at all the arguments presented here and try to draw a conclusion from them. In doing so it is usual practice that the opinions of ,those with a heavy conflict of interest, such as yourself as a direct relative of the subject, will be heavily discounted. Which is to say: you have made your point, but I would not waste too much additional time on this arguing this discussion. --- Possibly ☎ 05:45, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Benn is far more notable than Law and is actually a member of the House of Lords. As a fellow Englishman I can proudly confirm the deletion of this page is not xenophobic and just plainly doesn't meet Wikipedia's notability standards. It's important to remember that Wikipedia is not a directory and anyone interested in a list of barons has access to this in other places.Vladimir.copic (talk) 00:12, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note Looking glass 563621 - you need to sign your comments. I have added your signature onto your previous comments. You do this by adding four tildes at the end of your comment. Vladimir.copic (talk) 23:46, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• CONFLICT OF INTEREST Unfortunately I believe that Looking glass 563621 has a WP:CONFLICT with this article's subject and I will be going through the relevant processes to report this. It might be advisable to revisit the many other edits the user has made on this subject. Vladimir.copic (talk)
• Comment It is accepted consensus that peerages inherited after the enactment of the House of Lords act 1999 do not automatically confer notability. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:32, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I see nothing noteworthy here, other than the fact he inherited a peerage. Looking glass 563621 has declared that they are a relative of the subject ("This article is about my great, great-grandfather", they say, about Cecil Law, 6th Baron Ellenborough), so their !vote and arguments should be taken with . --- Possibly ☎ 01:47, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Aristocrats are not inherently notable, and the mere fact that their names and/or bio are mentioned in nobility-specific publications is not enough to establish notability. JBchrch talk 08:34, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Yes, I disclosed that conflict of interest when I started writing the Law family pages in the interests of transparency. However, I simply don't think I am conflicted as all my edits have been referenced and draw upon third party sources of information which are independently verifiable. In my view, those sources justify both content and notability (as well-researched English biographical histories). I can honestly say I have not sought to mislead but to chronicle an area of interest to me (and others) for public benefit (and thank you Possibly for acknowledging my work has not been terrible editing). I apologise to Vladimir.copic and Tataral if they feel I have shown "quite extreme WP:BIAS" in defending this article and the people that I know are interested in it - however, I simply don't feel it as obscure as you paint it. And I don't understand the benefit of deletion to WP - for all the reasons I have given above -it is also so negative (along with the current trend of cancel culture) and it is discouraging. If I am to be banned from further editing it will be a disappointment as I am still learning and have spent much time doing so. I will wait to hear from the Administrator in any event.Looking glass 563621 (talk) 08:42, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment P.s. if anyone could actually help me I would be very grateful! Looking glass 563621 (talk) 08:45, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Piecesofuk ‎ CrumbleCrumble HandsomeFellaDl2000 Surtsicna Mr Hall of England AvalerionV Racklever Adding some former contributors to this article for reference.

• Strong Delete Complete puff piece article for a person who I'm struggling to determine why he is notable. scope_creep^Talk 09:45, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Clearly not notable based on WP:GNG, so, unless there's a provision I don't know about that says being a Baron makes you automatically notable, he fails. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 17:36, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Clearly fail WP:NPOL. He is a titular baron, never sit in the House of Lord. VocalIndia (talk) 14:32, 24 July 2021 (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.