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 article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
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 within the scope of WikiProject Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ireland 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.IrelandWikipedia:WikiProject IrelandTemplate:WikiProject IrelandIreland articles
Why on earth should we do that? See WP:POLITICIAN - as members of the Irish House of Lords, all of the Viscounts are considered to be notable, as are the the first four earls. The fifth earl was a representative peer in the British House of Lords, and is thus also notable. WP:RED notes that articles are more likely to be created when there are red links, and states "Sometimes it is useful in editing article text to create a red link to indicate that a page will be created soon or that an article should be created for the topic because it would be notable and verifiable." It also states that "In general, a red link should be allowed to remain in an article if it links to a term that could plausibly sustain an article, but for which there exists no candidate article, or article section, under any name."
These people could plausibly sustain articles - there are sources that give details on their lives (notably Complete Peerage, but almost certainly others as well), and there are not candidate articles. Red links are completely appropriate. john k (talk) 00:32, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Let me add that if it can be demonstrated that any particular earl or viscount is not notable enough to qualify for an article, which I imagine would be possible, the red link should be removed. But I think the presumption would be that they are notable, even if they do not yet have articles. That said, if the red links are removed again, I will not add them back unless there seems to be a consensus to do so. john k (talk) 01:42, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
John, this is a style issue, not a notability dispute. I spent much of my Wiki time removing redlinked people from "Town and village" articles. When/if an article is written the links can be made - why make the articles look so half-finished with redlinks? Sarah777 (talk) 01:56, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the guideline at WP:RED suggests they should be kept - that if an article could plausibly be created, and one does not exist, we should keep the red links. I would say the reason to keep them is that the presence of red links tends to make article creation more likely. But it really isn't that big a deal. If you want to remove them again, I won't revert. john k (talk) 02:00, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All viscounts sat either in the Irish House of Commons, the Irish House of Lords or even in both and would fall thus under WP:Politician - except the fifth viscount, who held the title only for five years and so far I can see never entered any of the houses, so I would consider him clearly not notable and would therefore remove the respective link. ~~ Phoe talk ~~ 15:27, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
