Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Arbuthnot, 6th Viscount of Arbuthnott
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
— User:Halo, 15:56, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Stance: merge
Cited policy: WP:NOT (Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not)