Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Arbuthnot, 6th Viscount of Arbuthnott
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
— User:Choess, 20:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:NOTPAPER (Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not)