Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Montolieu Oliphant-Murray, 1st Viscount Elibank

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. (non-admin closure) Cavarrone 11:23, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Montolieu Oliphant-Murray, 1st Viscount Elibank[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

No refs on the page for many years. I'm not seeing the RS that show why this person would be considered notable against the inclusion criteria. He apparently has an painting in the National Gallery and entries in the directories of the peerage. But WP:NOTGENEOLOGY JMWt (talk) 09:23, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and United Kingdom. JMWt (talk) 09:23, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As a member of the House of Lords, he is automatically notable. I have added the Hansard page for his appointment. He was an officer in the Royal Navy, but perhaps there were other reasons for his appointment as a Viscount. Also, his death was reported in the New York Times. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 10:02, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For others, it seems that the position in the House of Lords was hereditary and as far as I can discern from Hansard, this person never spoke in a debate. JMWt (talk) 11:34, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Irrelevant. Ingratis (talk) 11:43, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 10:02, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Royalty and nobility, and Scotland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:51, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Pre-reform peers were automatically members of the House of Lords, which was and is one of the Houses of Parliament, and so pass NPOL. Ingratis (talk) 11:43, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Viscount Elibank. This article is a genealogy permastub, in direct contradiction with WP:NOTGENEALOGY. While this individual does de jure pass NPOL, the lack of participation in any debate means that, de facto, he was not a member of the House of Lords. Saying he is "automatically notable" is the same type of argument that people would cling to when defending footballers who had 0 games played, but still passed WP:NFOOTBALL, which eventually doomed that SNG to death by RfC. I don't have access to the NYT obit, but I'm 80% sure it does not satisfy the significant coverage required by WP:BIO, and besides we'd need more than one source. Since the NPOL is an SNG, which explicitly allows for deletion (articles which pass an SNG or the GNG may still be deleted or merged into another article, especially if adequate sourcing or significant coverage cannot be found), I think the GNG is a better metric for notability. I can at least find some debates where the 2nd Viscount was involved, but none for the first. I wouldn't vote delete or redirect on an active pre-reform Lord, but here we're very clearly lacking coverage. Pilaz (talk) 13:44, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the guideline you're looking for is WP:NOPAGE. Curbon7 (talk) 15:59, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The subject passes WP:NPOL as a member of the House of Lords, and thus is notable, but must still surpass the minimum requirements to maintain an article established at WP:NOPAGE. A cursory search on newspapers.com using this query returned a number of decent supplementary sources, including [1]. His obit here also helps fill in further biographical details. This obit contains some family info. British newspapers are generally poorly digitized on newspapers.com, so I wouldn't be surprised if there were more in other archives. There seems to be just enough to be sufficient. Curbon7 (talk) 17:30, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While the additional biographical information is certainly welcome, sources 1 and 3 do not provide significant coverage of the subject and expand on the already present WP:NOTGENEALOGY problems of this article. Secondly, obituaries are primary sources, so keeping this article with only primary sources available goes directly against WP:PRIMARY #5 (which happens to be a policy). Notable people usually get significant coverage well after their death, so that's what I'd like to see to strike my !vote. Pilaz (talk) 21:22, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The subject passes WP:NPOL, so he is notable full stop. What we need is sourcing to expand on the article so it is not, as you say, a genealogy. These sources do that by providing key biographical details, such as the positions he held. These sources are not meant to provide WP:SIGCOV because the subject is already notable, they are meant to be supplementary sources to expand the article beyond the current genealogy perma-stub. Curbon7 (talk) 21:50, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To me, this is one of the exceptions to the rule: someone who inherited a HoL seat and didn't participate in debates shouldn't be considered a politician. In the same way I don't think that every person appointed to national legislature inherits notability for the purposes of en.wiki. For example there are 3000 members of the National People's Congress and we do not assume every member meets the notability criteria there. JMWt (talk) 06:48, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely something worth taking up at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people). I certainly understand what you're saying and recognize consensus can change, but am generally adverse to new interpretations being established in one-off AfDs. Curbon7 (talk) 21:03, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 18:14, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability established. Added a reference. Coldupnorth (talk) 08:54, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. One point that's been missed in the discussion above is that his inherited Scottish peerage did not entitle him to a seat in the House of Lords; the Viscountcy created in 1911 did. Maybe that has more to do with the political connections of the Master of Elibank than his father, but a Conservative being added to the House of Lords under the last majority Liberal administration suggests to me that something more than routine was going on here. Choess (talk) 13:09, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If that's the case, presumably WP:NPOL doesn't apply..? In which case the above claims of 'automatic notability' doesn't apply either. Edit: maybe I've misunderstood your point. Are you saying he was or wasn't in the HoL? Edit 2: I'm wrong, your point is that it wasn't an inherited HoL seat. JMWt (talk) 18:22, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
keep good article and a member of British nobility thanks Briannemartindale (talk) 23:24, 22 May 2024 (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.