Deletion of John Arbuthnot, 6th Viscount of Arbuthnott

Comment: being a Viscount is in itself very notable and the fellow appears to have been quite eccentric and has a piece in James Balfour Paul's ''The Scot's Peerage'' on him. The nominator of this AfD can hardly claim to be impartial when it comes to the Arbuthnots. Just a case of  really. Others have been told to display a disdain for terrorists on Wikipedia is out of order. Well demonstrating the same disdain for the aristocracy is the same
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:IDONTLIKEIT)

Comment: The vast majority of British peers historically have satisfied  and  by virtue of being members of a national legislature. I do, however, agree that if it could be shown that Arbuthnott never sat in the GB Parliament as a representative peer, then his automatic notability under these guidelines would not apply
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:BIO)

Comment: Notwithstanding nominator's Carl Sagan|Saganesque "thousands and thousands" rhetoric, I don't think the situation with the British peerage is out of control in terms of maintainability. I've http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AWikiProject_Baronetcies&diff=126310930&oldid=126304791 proposed a solution similar to that which has been suggested here for baronets; however, I feel that the British peerages are sufficiently limited (in contradistinction to the baronetcies) and of sufficiently elevated status, that we're better served by complete, if short, articles on each of them than by trying to boil them into lists. In my opinion, anyway,  carries with it an expectation of completeness: we can afford to create and maintain separate articles on members of the nobility (British nobility, anyway, where 1 title = 1 person), the upper echelons of various religious hierarchies, certain political offices, and so on, even if the incumbent was not particularly accomplished. I think peers are both sufficiently important in general and sufficiently small a group (in relative terms) that keeping individual articles for them is in the best interests of the encyclopedia
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTPAPER)

Comment: I feel that since John Arbuthnot, 6th Viscount of Arbuthnott had the right to sit in the British House of Lords, and since Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, and we have had no reports that we are running out of server space, we can well afford to have an article for him. If someone cared to dig through paper records, besides just Google resources and family histories, the article could probably be fleshed out. Note that we have articles for every single member of the First Continental Congress, (and probably every U.S. congresssman) apparently based on some notion of inherent notability, however little there is to say about them, and they were opposite numbers in the world's political arena of the 18th century. An example is Isaac Low of whom less can be said than we have about John Arbuthnot. This is more than an "othercrapexists" argument, being based the  provision "Politicians who have held international, national or statewide/provincewide office, and members and former members of a national, state or provincial legislatures
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: This almost equates with  - unless a peer has done anything notable in their own right, with enough substantial and verifiable information to warrant an article, there's no reason to have them in Wikipedia. This is #IINFO|not Burke's or Debretts
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (WP:EPISODE||WP:NOT)

Comment: That is not a reason to keep the article please refamiliaris yourself with . regards
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:ATA)

Comment: or '''merge''' to the Viscount Arbuthnot article. No proof has been shown that the Viscount did or even could have sat in the House of Lords. This obviously means that he Wikipedia:Notability_%28people%29#Criteria_for_notability_of_people|fails the politician criteria pf the notability policy and as there is nothing else to claim that he passes  then we are left with nothing to defend
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: somewhere, but otherwise '''Keep''' - By deleting this, you're just showing Wikipedia's systematic bias towards modern articles. It's a double standard to have articles on every modern MP or Congressman but not have one on an Earl when they essentially do the same job. Notability generally doesn't change, and Wikipedia is |not paper. IMO, Lords are generally notable. Whatsmore, people (including the person who posted to AFD) are falling into the trap of saying just because an article is currently short, that it completely and fully represents all possible information that can be found about a subject. This is a much misused argument on an AFD - the argument is surely "they are not notable and no reliable sources could ever be found" and not "the article is current rubbish, so lets delete and prevent recreation
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)