Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Manners-Sutton

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 per

George Manners-Sutton

Non Notable. Article does not show this gentleman had any significance in history other than having been an obscure member of Parliament a long time ago. Why bother with an entire article on him? Wikipedia is not an indiscriminant collection of insignificant facts. UCF Cheerleader 20:01, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Same nominator proposed George Manners for deletion and I respond with the same points: UScentric bias of nominator regretted, but this article is about someone who was elected to a national parliament, was related to another notable Wiki entrant. Who cares? Personally, I don't, but because I personally do not care about 200+ year ago MPS does not mean it should be removed. Nominator's own article does not exactly show understanding of what notable means. "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminant collection of insignificant facts". What? What else is an encyclopaedia but a collection of insignificant facts? Emeraude 20:26, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Meets
  WP:BIO. Even if he died on the toilet an hour after being in office, he is still an elected official (though he'd probably be notable more for that story...). EVula 20:36, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep -- it could use some work, along the lines I mentioned on its Talk page. It was a pretty important moment in Brit and world history, the years when Manners-Sutton was in parliament. With whom did he stand on the crucial issues of that day? America, France, Ireland, India.... --Christofurio 20:51, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Member of Parliament. Fan-1967 20:53, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Wikipedia is not only for what's popular with 21st century American college kids. All elected parliamentarians in all countries are by definition notable per
  WP:BIO
  .

• Comment. I'm not sure if you know this, but you should: Calling a member of the House of Commons in the 18th century "nationally elected" is absurd. Suffrage was extremely limited back then, and even most of the middle class couldn't vote until the Electoral Reforms of 1832. The Georgian Parliament was riddled with handpicked lackeys that stood from "pocket boroughs". MPs until the late 19th century at least were neither "elected" or "national." UCF Cheerleader 23:30, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment It's not a fair point. If we're going to get rid of non-US legislators because they were "handpicked lackeys", we'll have to get rid of articles on thousands of US legislators as well, so why pick on non-US legislators? I'm sure you realize that most US senators were once hand-picked by state legislatures or by governors personally, and that most junior representatives were hand-picked to run by more senior politicians. I won't say that you "should" know that, though. --Charlene.fic 02:14, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and response to above It's a fair point, historically speaking, but then we'd have to get rid of a lot of U.S. "elected officals" too (as women could not vote until the 20's and African-Americans, practically speaking, not until the 1960's.) The consensus seems to be that if one is the member of a legislative body, one merits an article. Since in the U.S. this extends even to state legislatures (and we've got 50 of them) I strongly support the notion that every member of the British parliament merits an article if someone chooses to write one. Dina 00:34, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Meets
  WP:BIO criteria. Members of national legislatures are inherently notable, whether elected by universal suffrage or not. -- Necrothesp 01:15, 20 October 2006 (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.