Talk:Sir Charles Stronge, 7th Baronet

message: Can anyone please explain why this guy is notable? I understand that he is from a notable family but why specifically should this guy have an article of his own?--Vintagekits 21:19, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He was also a baronet, a DL, a JP and a High Sheriff.--Couter-revolutionary 21:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That does not suffice in terms of WP:NN--Vintagekits 21:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why on earth not? It is your job to prove how they don't.  He held important positions, which were even more relevant at the time he was alive i.e. even if a High Sheriff doesn't do much nowadays, they did then.--Couter-revolutionary 21:43, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So held a couple of honorary titles that dont actually mean anything - but what did he do that made him notable? p.s. its actually you that has to prove notability not the other way around--Vintagekits 21:48, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am telling you that when he held them they were important positions.  I suppose you would call a member of the Lords an honorary position and therefore not notable? We don't live in  a meritocracy.--Couter-revolutionary 21:50, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Is that reference the only source of information for this guy?--Vintagekits 22:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: At present it is the only referenced source yes.  I am sure if I wanted I could spend time going through various books to find more of the same however.  the fact that something isn't on the internet doesn't discount from the notablity/verifiability of said thing.--Couter-revolutionary 22:19, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Correct, however, if you cant provide sources to satisfy WP:V then its bye bye for the Baron!--Vintagekits 22:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ...Baronet and, yes, I have provided sources - Burke's.  You are perfectly entitled to look this up yourself, it's all there.  --Couter-revolutionary 22:30, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Sources"!!! no 1 source singular! its going to take a bit more than one source especially as that book will list him even if he never does nothing nor anything but.--Vintagekits 22:33, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wasn't aware of that precedent.  And, no, if one did nothing Burke's wouldn't invent lines of print for one.  As I say, I shall endeavour to find more sources, these things, however, take time.--Couter-revolutionary 22:35, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He easily passes the Wikipedia:Pokemon test. Is this a case of Wikipedia:Wikistalking following the failure to delete Baron Alexis de Rédé?  - Kittybrewster 23:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It certainly looks that way. Vintagekits, stop being childish. Proteus (Talk) 21:15, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Seriously I am not being childish! as for Baron Alexis de Rédé - they changed the name of the page completely because there was zero hits for him on Google - that is why I nominated it.--Vintagekits 21:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Google is not the be all and end all of life!--Couter-revolutionary 21:39, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Its a good starting point these days!--Vintagekits 21:40, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ...unfortunately.--Couter-revolutionary 21:47, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I believe there is a value in these folk (even if marginal which I think this man is not) being here as an integral part of a "set" or series. It makes them easy to navigate around the Stronge family or List of Deputy Lieutenants and gives us the opportunity to expand on the entry. I also question why a Baronet DL, High sheriff should have been questioned by someone on the grounds that there was only one source. My reaction was so what - it was a good source. We would be better off pruning the absurd (and non-independant) entry on and by Francis Martin O'Donnell and AfD Vice Great Seneschal of Ireland. I say again this man would easily pass an AFD. _ Kittybrewster 07:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I actually think that they should be contained within the a single article as they dont pass WP:NN on there own imo.--Vintagekits 09:19, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They do too.  their ... - Kittybrewster 10:26, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A baronet being only a baronet wouldn't be notable in my opinion, however by the connection to several minor posts/offices this subject is it. Greetings ~~ Phoe talk 16:13, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agreed; each of baronet, DL and HS would not automatically on their own be notable but I think together these things are grounds for inclusion and the article should be given reasonable time to see what it becomes. Alci12 16:19, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notablility