Talk:Peter Archer, Baron Archer of Sandwell

Novelist?

Is this, in fact, the same Peter Archer that wrote "The Shifting Sands" in Realms of Shadow, or is the linking from List_of_Forgotten_Realms_novels incorrect? --24.29.68.11 (talk) 07:14, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. That's my judgment of the results of this discussion. However, in interest of full disclosure: After reviewing the discussion and Googling "Peter Archer", I have to say that my own inclination would weigh toward keeping the current name. It is consistent with the relevant naming convention, and I found that this "Peter Archer" is not even the top result for that name when I search Google from the U.S. Orlady (talk) 03:46, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

---

Peter Archer, Baron Archer of Sandwell → Peter Archer — This is currently the only Peter Archer with an article, and his political activity was mostly before he received his peerage, see WP:NCROY. PatGallacher (talk) 15:21, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

The current title is the one dictated by WP:NCROY. He doesn't seem to fit any of the narrow exceptions in that policy.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 07:39, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

He does fit the bill: "Some peers who are almost exclusively known by their personal names have their articles so titled, e.g. Bertrand Russell (not "Bertrand Russell, 3rd Earl Russell"). The same applies to many well-known politicians who only received a title after they retired: Anthony Eden (not "Anthony Eden, 1st Earl of Avon"), Margaret Thatcher (not "Margaret Thatcher, Baroness Thatcher")." PatGallacher (talk) 10:34, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

How does he fit that? First, he isn't famous in other fields in the way that Bertrand Russell was. And the bit about retirement doesn't apply here, since he isn't retired even this year he's active in the Lords, and since he was elevated to the peerage he's done some work in the Lords noteworthy enough to be mentioned in the article. (His amendment absolishing the death penalty for treason.) While I think that "retirement" bit is confused and wrong, I also think it doesn't apply here.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:29, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose because not only are there other notable Peter Archers, when someone has a title the Wikipedia article page name usually reflects that. 64.105.65.28 (talk) 04:26, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Which other Peter Archers do you consider to be of comparable notability to this one?--Kotniski (talk) 13:00, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support, as with most of these life peers, I don't see any benefit in including "Baron ..." in the title.--Kotniski (talk) 13:00, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.