Talk:Rachel Douglas-Home, 27th Baroness Dacre

message: This article is simply of list of people related to the person in question and says nothing about what the person herself has actually done.--Lairor 03:00, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This does not qualify as a speedy. A peerage is sufficient claim of notability that this should be handled at WP:AFD and not via a speedy. -- JLaTondre 03:53, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

text: This was not vandalism. He/she expressed a valid concern. Different editors have different thresholds for notability and expressing ones opinion that something doesn't qualify is in no way vandalism. WP:POKEMON is only an essay vs. WP:NOTE which is a guideline. Also, please remember to assume good faith - that one is policy. -- JLaTondre 03:53, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Lairor put about half a dozen articles on peers up for speedy deletion at once, IMHO, that's at least against WP:POINT if not just vandalism. There's a proper way (AfD as you pointed out) to propose deletions of this kind of article, but I think everyone here is aware such an AfD would result in a speedy keep. Tubezone 04:01, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A WP:POINT infraction is still not vandalism. WP:POINT infractions can also be hard to correctly categorize. If he truly believes they should be deleted & a peerage isn't a claim of notability, then it wouldn't be a WP:POINT infraction. A comment like TruthbringerToronto placed on his talk page is a much more productive approach than engaging in confrontation. Perhaps there is something I'm missing, but from contributions, I see little involvement in AFD, peerage articles, or the Wikipedia namespace so I don't think it's self-evident that he should think an AFD would result in a keep. Thanks. -- JLaTondre 04:45, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Sorry, however massadding deletion proposals doesn't seem "good faith" for me. I think he is upset because his application to move George Byron, 6th Baron Byron failed, but this should not vent on other articles. ~~ Phoe talk 11:12, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh please don't judge me like you know who I am.  My work with the Byron article simply brought my attention to these peers.  I went through a whole bunch of articles and many of them had informative content like talking about participation in government or military and I didn't touch them.  However, for the ones I did tag, all I saw was birthdates and who they were related to and those are all things my own family has so I honestly didn't think they were notable.--Lairor 12:06, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If this is not the reason, it is good. But you have to understand that your definition of notiblity does not count alone. Perhaps in one hundred years someone in your familiy will do or will have done something important, that makes you suddenly as as ancestor and member of this person's familiy notable. It means, notability does not only refer directly to a person, but also on the surroundings with that. Have a look at James Craik, if he would have been James Smith's from anywhere doctor, he would not be notable, but he was George Washington's doctor and this fact only makes him notable. Phoe 12:46, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled