The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. RL0919 (talk) 21:00, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

James Hamilton, 2nd Earl of Abercorn[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

NO mention of notability whatsoever. Further, notability is not inherited either. Necromonger...We keep what we kill 14:49, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:57, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The extensive reference section includes several secondary sources (British peerages) which can be examined online, and provide, in my judgment "significant coverage". (That is, they're not just list entries, but discuss his profession of Roman Catholicism and his debts, key life events, which are supplemented here from other sources.) As a peer and member of a national legislature, he also has a presumption of notability, but that's beside the point given the sourcing here. I suggest the nominator carefully read WP:GNG before filing future AfDs, because the nominating statement shows a lack of understanding of that guideline and how to evaluate articles according to it. Choess (talk) 15:10, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As a peer and member of a national legislature, he also has a presumption of notability, but that's beside the point given the sourcing here. Pure malarkey. This shows no notability, and as far as peerage, how about WP:BIOFAMILY which seems to apply here. The page currently shows that he's from nobility and a peer, neither of which confers notability as far as Wikipedia is concerned. As far as GNG, it states the subject needs independent reliable sources, this article shows family lines of genealogy gathered on archive.org with no way of verifying the actual website contained that information at all, and genealogy isn't independent. No disrespect to the individual himself, but notability isn't inherited, which is what this article is trying to state. Necromonger...We keep what we kill 15:23, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The subject is notable, in the Wikipedia sense of the word, because he passes the WP:GNG: he has received significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. The Complete Peerage, Burke's Peerage, and The Scots Peerage are all standard works of reference on the British nobility; they are published books, and scans from the portions that are out-of-copyright are available on archive.org. (They are not "family lines of genealogy gathered on archive.org".) They were compiled by various genealogists who were not employed by, members of, or otherwise specially connected with the Hamilton family, so they are independent in the sense used by the GNG. If the information about him was strictly genealogical (dates of birth, death, and marriage, and names of family) I would agree that the case for "significant coverage" is weak, but as the entries in the peerages have further biographical details about religion and finances, which are expanded by the other sources in the article, I think this rises above the "trivial mention" referred to in the GNG.

As a Scots peer, he was entitled to sit and vote in the Parliament of Scotland. Precedent in en.wikipedia is that because of their role in the national legislature, peers in the UK countries are presumed to be notable by virtue of WP:NPOL, but I prefer to to make my case on subject-specific notability guidelines when I don't have to.

I think your feeling that people shouldn't be considered important or notable by virtue of being born into the right family is quite reasonable, but up until 1999, this group of people was endowed with actual legislative power in the UK. Whether or not this was just, it happened, and it made them a subject of interest and research and reliable sources were written about them. Therefore, they're a legitimate subject for Wikipedia. That's why peers have generally been considered notable at AfD (I've scanned a number of AfDs for peers from 2007-2016), despite a very genealogical flavor to their articles, whereas a series of articles about successive members of an American family would probably get deleted unless proof of notability was provided for each individual. (By contrast, baronets generally get redirected to a list unless they're independently notable by virtue of the WP:GNG, a consensus we came to here about 12 years ago; there are reference works like the peerages describing them, but the information for most of them is almost purely genealogical—they had no legislative privileges—so they usually fail the "trivial mention" test unless they're covered by other sources.) Choess (talk) 17:46, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notability isn’t automatic because of his rank, but there is enough detail about his life covered in sufficient independent sources to make him notable for our purposes. Mccapra (talk) 19:06, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:06, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree with users Choess and Mccapra who have so well argued the case. Johannes Schade (talk) 14:17, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - earls were a big deal in 17th century politics. Bearian (talk) 02:15, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of sources.NotButtigieg (talk) 23:02, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- He would have been a member of the Scottish Parliament by virtue of his peerage. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:21, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly notable per all above. There is massive precedent on Wikipedia for all British peers to be considered notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:23, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I agree with the comments above that he is clearly notable. As a senior peer, he was an important figure and, as the article indicates to an extent, his religious stance meant he had prominence during his lifetime. Dunarc (talk) 21:58, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.