This article was nominated for deletion on 4 November 2022. The result of the discussion was keep.

This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography: Peerage and Baronetage This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles This article is supported by WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage. England Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

It is requested that a photograph be included in this article to improve its quality. The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

Should this article, John Harbord, 8th Baron Suffield, be changed to a redirect to the subject's title, Baron Suffield? -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:56, 19 November 2022 (UTC) reply

• When the AfD was closed as "keep", the closer wrote, "The possibility of this article being changed to a Redirect can be discussed on the article talk page." I am doing so now.

  I am recommending a redirect because the content of this article, while supposedly a biography, is almost entirely about the subject's family members. The article says that Harbord "was educated at Gresham's School, Holt" -- but there is nothing about what he did in his entire adult life until he died at age 37. While there were times in British history when some members of the nobility could live off their income without doing anything that be could considered work or even philanthropic activity, the last few years of Harbord's life was not one of those periods. As indicated in Conscription in the United Kingdom#Second World War, a man in his 30s (as Harbord was) during World War II would have been expected to engage in National Service unless he was exempted for some good reason like being in a reserved occupation. So I assume that Harbord was doing something worth mentioning during the war years, until he died in June 1945, but this article leaves a complete void as to what. (As far as I can find, he did not die on active service in the military.)

  It was suggested in the AfD that Harbord is automatically considered notable under WP:POLOUTCOMES by virtue of having been a member of the House of Lords, which indeed he was from 1943 to 1945. However, Harbord never took his seat in the House of Lords, and WP:POLOUTCOMES is ambiguous as to whether members of legislatures are considered notable as such. (It says, "Elected and appointed political figures at the national cabinet level are generally regarded as notable ..." but legislators don't necessarily serve in national cabinets; I'm not sure exactly what the writer of this sentence had in mind as to national legislators, but at most it says they are "generally regarded as notable".) Rather, WP:MONARCH which appears not far below WP:POLOUTCOMES says, "The notability of ... other nobility (dukes, counts, barons, knights, etc.) is decided on a case-by-case basis based on the general notability guideline ...." So far, Harbord fails WP:GNG because only one source has been cited in this article, a page from cracroftspeerage.co.uk, which is a deprecated self-published peerage website.

  In addition, WP:NPOL says that "Politicians and judges who have held international, national, or (for countries with federal or similar systems of government) state/province–wide office, or have been members of legislative bodies at those levels" are "presumed to be notable". But note, that says "presumed", not "guaranteed". From what we have in this article, that presumption has been overcome by the fact that Harbord never took his seat in the Lords and no information has been forthcoming about anything he did in his adult life except for his date of death.

  I note that it is fairly common for Wikipedia to not have articles about other British barons of his era. Some other barons who held their titles at the same time Harbord did, but don't have Wikipedia articles of their own. The links in the following sentence are to the titles, which list all the holders of the peerage, from which you can see that the persons who held all those titles in 1945 do not have Wikipedia articles of their own. This group of peers from that era without articles include Baron Walpole, Baron Monson, Baron Boston, Baron Vernon, Baron Southampton, Baron Grantley, Baron Rodney, Baron Somers, Baron Braybrooke, Baron Auckland, and Baron Bolton.

Thus, I recommend that this article be changed to a redirect unless and until the void in the subject's biography can be filled. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:27, 19 November 2022 (UTC) reply

This is proposing a WP:MERGE, and as such, is not an RfC matter. -- Redrose64 🌹 ( talk) 10:21, 19 November 2022 (UTC) reply

I have to agree, this doesn't seem to be something for an RfC to me either. Just a discussion is called for. Qflib, aka KeeYou Flib ( talk) 02:20, 21 November 2022 (UTC) reply

• Absolutely not. Kept at AfD because he meets WP:POLITICIAN. It's a little underhand to effectively try to get it deleted on another forum. As to other barons from that era not having articles, Wikipedia is a work in progress. Current lack of an article certainly does not set a precedent. @ Liz, Clarityfiend, Jahaza, Ingratis, and Bearian:. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 13:30, 21 November 2022 (UTC) reply

How is it underhand(ed)? The AfD closer specifically left the door open. I say (no surprise) march (re)directly through it. He fails WP:GNG with a big thud. Clarityfiend ( talk) 13:44, 21 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Because the discussion has already been had at AfD which produced a clear consensus to keep. Given the article talk page is obviously not so obvious to other editors as an AfD, this is like having another AfD that's not so well attended! Which, let's be honest, looks rather like trying to get it deleted anyway without any input from those pesky editors who objected at the main forum for getting things deleted! Generally that's not how things are done on Wikipedia. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 13:47, 21 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Keep for substantive and procedural reasons. First, he was a voting parliament member: he made laws that effect a country of 60 million people and we almost always keep such articles. Secondly, we Wikipedians decided; consensus can change but that happens over years rather than days, and I was burned badly when an article that I created was the subject of two rapid-fire AfDs within two weeks. Bearian ( talk) 14:28, 22 November 2022 (UTC) reply

• Since there is some strong opposition to the merge, I won't go forward with it ... for now. This article is still extremely lacking, with the only source being a deprecated one. At least as importantly, the article is a complete void as to anything the man did between leaving school and dying 20 years later. As discussed in the AfD, Harbord was not a voting parliament member and did not make laws given that he never took his seat in the House of Lords. There may have been a very good reason for why he didn't take his seat in the Lords, but so far nobody on Wikipedia has found out what that was. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:36, 30 November 2022 (UTC) reply

• Please also close the duplicate merge discussion you opened at Talk:Baron Suffield. Ingratis ( talk) 07:53, 1 December 2022 (UTC) reply
  • I already posted there, "There was some significant opposition to the merger at Talk:John Harbord, 8th Baron Suffield, so I'm not going to proceed with it for now." -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:12, 1 December 2022 (UTC) reply