Talk:Hereditary Peerage Association

This article was nominated for deletion on May 22, 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.

Notability

Notable because all its members are notable and it is the leading pressure group supporting hereditary peers.--Couter-revolutionary 23:41, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That does not make the Association notable.--Vintagekits 23:56, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pleanty of refs. Obviously ignore the Wikipedia and ones from mirror sites.[1]--Couter-revolutionary 00:16, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting interpretation of "plenty".--Vintagekits 00:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the HPA do most of their work over the internet.--Couter-revolutionary 00:36, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If they were notable they should be easy to source and prove notability.--Vintagekits 00:42, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If life peers are notable, then hereditary peers must also be notable - as is the body that supports them. - Kittybrewster 12:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That doesnt exactly follow! Why is this association notable, what are they notable for doing - why are going to need some external mainstream sources here.--Vintagekits 19:36, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They are notable as (as close as one can come) to a pressure group for Hereditary Peers. It is organising the legal challenges, which are expected when they exile the remaining 92 from their proprietary right. --Counter-revolutionary 19:40, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well you are going to have to prove their notability or else I am going to nominate this for AfD as at the moment notability isnt proven.--Vintagekits 20:02, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just have!! I think the only pressure group for hereditary peers, with notable members is automatically notable! Also, there are references like these; [2], including various media refs. (even the Grauniad) and parliamentary ones. --Counter-revolutionary 20:14, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A pressure group for a bunch of crusty old relics is not notable United and Free 14:03, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

13 indivual hits on Google is not a good start - anyway that merely proves it exists not that its is notable per WP:ORG.--Vintagekits 14:13, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is obviously notable whether you like it or not. --Counter-revolutionary 14:41, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agh thats the well reasoned, high complex defense that I have come to know and love!! It's got a week to come up with some decent independent external sources proving notability or its going to have to be nominated for AfD. I'll leave it with you. --Vintagekits 11:41, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have provided you with them. I sha'n't be coerced into anything. Your intention is to nominate it for AfD whatever happens so why don't you just do it now. Any objective, neutral and reasonable person can see it's notable - I have faith in that. --Counter-revolutionary 12:24, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also think this comment (made by User:Vintagekits);

"Read what these these snivellers have to say for themselves"...perhaps shows his PoV with regards to this area. --Counter-revolutionary 15:43, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dry your eyes and improve the article or its getting nominated for AfD.--Vintagekits 18:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I told you to do it now. I believe most wikipedians are more objective then you are. --Counter-revolutionary 18:41, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WHAT I MEANT was to Afd it now! I didn't see the point in waiting. --Counter-revolutionary 21:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:House of Lords.jpg

The image Image:House of Lords.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --16:12, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TOPs

It came into being in 2002 due to a merger of the "Hereditary Peers" and "TOPs".

What or who are TOPs? In what sense did the hereditary peers merge with them? —Tamfang (talk) 18:13, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As in five years nobody has found it necessary to explain what TOPs actually are, I've removed the sentence. Cyan22 (talk) 11:27, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]