Talk:Gulam Noon, Baron Noon

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Requested move[edit]

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: Move per proposal Orlady (talk) 05:05, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gulam Noon → Gulam Noon, Baron Noon.

Oppose - Not known by the peerage title, widely known as a businessman and for being a wealthy donor to the Labour party. Also no disambiguation is required for this Article title.--Lucy-marie (talk) 16:49, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. WP:NCPEER is quite clear. This chap is no longer wholly or exclusively known by his pre-peerage nomenclature. Kittybrewster ☎ 15:15, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support per WP:NCPEER. not well-known before his peerage. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:42, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - He was well known before recieveing his peerage as he recieved his MBE for services to the food industry in 1996 well before being ennobled, also the Noon branded food products are well known.--Lucy-marie (talk) 22:41, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support He was not widely known before the peerage, and the article was only created on the back of his notability arising from the peerage. -Rrius (talk) 23:44, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support had never heard of "Noon" food until the publicised peerage and Labour Party donation. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:48, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
comment - Just because individual users haven't heard of a brand doesn't it not notable. It is spices and curry food etc and is likely to be concentrated in the Indian and Pakistani communities, but that doesn't make it not-notable. Also Gulam Noon has appeared in Rich lists so he is notable for purely being rich as he has appeared in those publications.--Lucy-marie (talk) 23:54, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes yes, your comment is fascinating, but stop badgering me. I've made my position clear. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:55, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Being rich does not make a person WP:NOTABLE. Kittybrewster ☎ 23:59, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Appearing in publications for the reason of being rich does make the person notable for being rich, while the mere fact of being rich is not notable apperaing in publications because you are rich makes you notable for being rich.--Lucy-marie (talk) 11:40, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose in the strongest possible terms for consistency in naming per policy and guidelines like WP:COMMONNAME, WP:TITLE, WP:D and WP:PRECISION that apply to all Wikipedia article titles. The subject is most commonly known by the current title; adding peerage information is additional precision that is completely unnecessary, all good reasons to ignore WP:NCPEER. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:58, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
B2C's arguments are bogus, because the policy WP:TITLE explicitly permits topic-specific naming conventions such as WP:NCPEER. Kittybrewster ☎ 20:07, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Businessmen who have been ennobled are almost invariably known by their titles thereafter. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:38, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This is not a Crystal Ball and what they are currently known is what we have to take as the current commonly used name. If in the future the individual is known regularly by their ennobled title then that would be grounds to change the article title. To though say, it is expected that the names they are known by will change is not how things work on Wikipeida.--Lucy-marie (talk) 17:32, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Reclassified as a start[edit]

This article was classified as a stub in 2012. The article has since been upgraded so that in my view it meets a start classification. Capitalistroadster (talk) 00:05, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gulam Noon, Baron Noon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:07, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gulam_Noon,_Baron_Noon&oldid=1202251374"