This article was nominated for deletion on March 7, 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This redirect 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
Latest comment: 17 years ago9 comments2 people in discussion
You state here that these different sources. What is the difference between that Debrett of 1998 and 2007? and Burkes book and website - these are the same sources--Vintagekits 01:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
Furthermore I have click on the two web pages you have provided and Sir Keith Arbuthnot does not appear on these pages - why have you listed them?--Vintagekits 01:17, 13 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
Great questions. 1 Debrett's Peeerage and Baronetage is a different book from Debrett's Distinguished People of Today. First is red. Second is blue. 2. Burke's is a different publisher. 3. Cracroft's is subscribers only - so become a subscriber and you will find him. Left column. 4. the Peerage is Mr Lundy's site and Sir Keith pops up in front of me when I click the link. Maybe your cache needs clearing. Or your cookies. They all independently confirm notability. - Kittybrewster 02:52, 13 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
I have just noticed that each of the references provide each provide the exact same information - pretty much word for word.--Vintagekits 03:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
It would be strange if they provided different information. The point is that they are independant and confirmatory. - Kittybrewster 12:55, 13 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
My point is that they all read exactly the same infact they are all copies of each other, none of the sources provides anymore (or less for that matter) then the other sources. It gives no depth of coverage.--Vintagekits 13:06, 13 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
If all four sources provide the same information then the other three should be removed as they are redundant.--Vintagekits 14:59, 13 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
"Wrong" doesnt help us here. I articles that I have written, where the information is doubled up/overlaps and all the information can come from one source then the others sources have been removed as being redundant.--Vintagekits 15:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
