Deletion of Piers Lauder

Comment: There is no where near enough Reliable, Verifiable sources to make it a  Subject
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO)

Comment: lacks significant coverage from WP:reliable source| reliable sources to establish | notability
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NOTABLE)

Comment: another notable baronet, in my opinion meets 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO)

Comment: Where are the multiple, non-non-trivial independent sources required by ?  The two on-line sources are on his employers' websites (and therefore not independent), and the only other references are in directories
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO)

Comment: Again, please please please  do ''read'' : the place where it say that an employer's public comments on their staff is unacceptable as evidence of notability is where #Criteria_for_notability_of_people requires "published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and '''independent of the subject'''" (emphasis added by me). An employer is clearly ''not'' independent of the subject, and indeed many employer websites quite properly have webpages on people who who are clearly notable only in the context of the company or organisation concerned.As to the references which you added, the http://www.cs.usyd.edu.au/~piers/bio.html first was a duplicate, the http://portal.acm.org/results.cfm?query=author%3APiers%20Lauder&querydisp=author%3APiers%20Lauder&coll=GUIDE&dl=GUIDE&CFID=35726739&CFTOKEN=49883928 second was a link to a paper ''by'' Lauder not an article about him, and hence is irrelevant to notability; and the http://www.anu.edu.au/people/Roger.Clarke/II/OzI04.html third reference makes two passing references to Lauder. So in reality, the only evidence we have of the notability of Lauder's contribution to computing is two brief mentions in an http://www.anu.edu.au/people/Roger.Clarke/II/OzI04.html  essay hosted on the author's own homepage.  Even if that meets the non-trivial criterion, it hardly meets the "published" criterion.The reason that this AfD is important is that it is about an area where a significant number of the editors who create the articles seem to be either unaware of the notability guidelines, or at best (assuming good faith), to seriously misunderstand them, repeatedly disrupting notability discussions with spurious claims such as that a person is notable for having inherited a baronetcy, or even claims such as http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Piers_Lauder&diff=157900146&oldid=157856883 this that the subject held a role which none of the sources claim
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO||WP:BIO)

Comment: to Lauder Baronets, as I did http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lauder_Baronets&diff=154157836&oldid=140530649 here with another non-notable Lauder Baronet, viz. Sir Andrew Dick-Lauder, 6th Baronet. I agree with the nominator's assessment of Piers Lauder as non-notable, but I would be strongly opposed to simply deleting the article. The article on the baronetcy itself is clearly notable per  (referenced in multiple sources), and demonstrates holders of the title played a significant roile through over a dozen generations. Per , there is no need to constrain the length of Lauder Baronets, so I will go ahead and merge, an action which does not require AfD approval
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:PAPER)

Comment: can any of those voting to "keep" this article explain how it meets ? Subjective judgments such as "more notable than most" are not reasons to keep
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO)