Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sir William Arbuthnot, 2nd Baronet

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was No consensus.

Need some help? 16:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Sir William Arbuthnot, 2nd Baronet

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log
)

Contested prod with no comment as to notability from an editor who is the subject of the article. This article is a biography where the only claim to notability is an inherited title, Baronet. The title, should not be confused with the title of Baron and it 'is not a peerage and has never entitled the holder to a seat in the House of Lords' unlike a Baron. Therefore title has no claim to notability and has no input to the British Parliamentary or legal systems.

The first/original holder of the title may have a claim to notability, a 1st Baronet may be notable based on the reasons that he was given the title for some deed or notability but subsequent family members that who simple inherit a title that is essential not notable and has no real power is not. As we know 'notability cannot gained from relationship' and 'Wikipedia is not a genealogical database'. As the article offers no other claims to notability the subject fails

WP:ILIKEIT
bases and simple stating that Baronets are notable but when these editor are questioned as to why they are notable they are (especially in the light that it is a ceremonial title carrying no Parlimentary or legal powers) there will be limited response.

Additionally the sources provided have dubious reliability per

WP:SPS
as they are compiled from questionnaires that are sent out to the entrants and rely on this information for their own entries.

Furthermore I have checked the internet and written press for any other claims to notability other than being the son of someone that was given a Baronetcy and could find nothing. Therefore this page should deleted or merged to

Arbuthnot Baronets
as this is not a genealogical database. Therefore my !vote is -

  • Delete or Redirect to
    Arbuthnot Baronets-- Vintagekits 11:58, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Comment, thats not true Sam, Baronets automatically get an entry in Debrett and Who's Who listings - remember that these books carry no depeth of covering and are purely listings akin to a telephone listing and ARE compiled by sending out questionaires that are filled in by the entrants themselves and are inaccurate in many cases. A Baronet is not a member of the peerage and is not a notable title unlike
notability of 2nd and subsequent Baronets. front the Baronet
page - A baronetcy is unique in two ways:
Comment You are wrong. This is not a debateable subject. it is a simple fact of the British establishment that baronets are notable and part of the nobility. You may not like it but its true. The Peerage is never printed without the Baronetage. Comparing established Peerages with a telephone directory shows your contempt on this subject and your very obvious lack of
WP:Good faith. By the way, being a peer or a baronet does NOT entitle you to go in Who's Who and entries in that books are never "automatic". 81.151.246.175 14:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment, Excuse me I am acting in good faith my explanation regarding why this article should be deleted is clearly thought out and explained so I am avoiding
Arbuthnot Baronets where he is already listed and there is a lot of repetition and cross over in both articles anyway. Infact he has created numerous articles in order to get every family member (such as Robert Arbuthnot (auditor) an article. Shameless self promotion imo.--Vintagekits 14:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Stong Keep: It is unfortunate, to say the least, that the nominator of this AFD, User:Vintagekits has demonstrated a very clear axe to grind against the subject of this article (who also is a Wikipedia User), over a considerable period. In addition he has shown a very clear distate for Britain, and the British Establishment and nobility. People should leave their personal vendettas behind when they come onto Wikipedia. Attempting to twist and turn the umpteen Wikipedia guidelines (and they are only guidelines "not carved in stone") to suit one's personal gripes is wrong. It is more than clear that the subject of this article is notable. 81.151.246.175 13:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC) Clear voting twice by the same user; striking out the IP vote. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 03:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, Thank you for basing your !vote on your dislike for me rather than wikipolicy (dont worry there will be more). It should be noted that this IP just edits one article, I'll say no more.--Vintagekits 14:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If only you would. --Major Bonkers (talk) 14:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Now, now - please remember
WP:CIVIL--Vintagekits 14:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment, Once again, thank you for basing your vote on my rather than wikipolicy. P.S. Major Bonkers is a member of the "Baronet Project"--Vintagekits 14:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The guideline in question is
AGF. --Major Bonkers (talk) 14:27, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
Thats a bit rich after you stated "if I didn't suspect that this AfD had more to do with the ongoing dispute about describing deaths caused by IRA activities as 'killings' rather than 'murders'; see here" - remind me who's not assuming good faith. Try voting on the basing of wikipolicy not POV!--Vintagekits 19:41, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I draw a distinction between your judgment, which I think is wrong in this case on the basis of the wikipolicy
WP:POINT and as commented upon above, but I do not impugn you personally. It would be more to the point if you address the concerns that I raise. --Major Bonkers (talk) 14:10, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment, incorrect, the title of Baron confers automatic notability as it is a higher ranking title and also allows (up until recently) the holder of that title to a seat in the House of Lords, however a the holder of a Baronet holds no such power and is purely ceremonial.--Vintagekits 14:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Everyone's entitled to their opinion, mine is different from yours. I daresay we'd disagree about the I.R.A. too and a host of other things but that's the nature of this place, it seeks consensus from a diversity of opinions. Coming back and having a go at everyone who disagrees with you here isn't doing your case any good. Nick mallory 01:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes everyone is entitled to their opinion, that is only fair, however if you wish to state them on an AfD allow and expect them to be questioned and challenged. Many edits are !noting "keep" on the basis that they dont like my republicanism which is petty. Anyway back to your vote - what is it about hte title of Baronet that you consider to be so notable as to confer automatic motability?--Vintagekits 01:27, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because notability is asserted by the person being the subject of multiple, independent, non trivial sources, which this person clearly is. Your nomination is clearly motivated by your political beliefs, which you not I are constantly bringing up, rather than any breach of Wikipedia inclusion policy. Nick mallory 06:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would suggest that the person clearly isn't the subject of multiple, independent non trivial sources, given that the entire sum of the non trivial sources runs to a five sentence stub. Perhaps if you spent less time attacking the motives of other editors (despite repeated requests not to) you would have realised that the sources are most definitely not non-trivial. One Night In Hackney303 06:12, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Baronets are of course members of the hereditary nobility. The only difference was that their
    Letters Patent excluded a right to sit in the Lords. Thats all. It is obvious that the subject of this article is notable. David Lauder 14:56, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Comment, welcome, welcome David, we've had you and Major Bonkers arrived now all we need is Astrotrain, Kittybrewster, Counter-revolutionary and maybe Gibnews for the full set of what another admin called the "lock step" voters. Additionally it is precisely the fact that Baron do get a seat in the House of Lords that makes them notable - thank you for contradicting yourself.--Vintagekits 15:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I wasn't proposing to vote because of
WP:COI. There is much in the article which I would wish were not there. Heigh ho! Is it a personality trait for some folks to be set upon commenting on everything and having the last word? - Kittybrewster (talk) 15:26, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment. Really!!
A Baronetcy cannot be bought. - Kittybrewster (talk) 15:26, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am aware of the distinction in reality - but how does that reflect itself in wikipolicy? I tried checking whether prescriptives were notable, but I couldn't get anywhere on the policy pages I tried, however, given that I've seen so few on the project, I'd guess that the holders aren't. One is bought, the other passes through family lines. How does wikipedia policy conclude that one is notable and the other not? New Progressive 17:20, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Default Keep since this seems to be a
    potentially bad-faith nom. If we don't have a policy on this (i.e. what levels of nobility are notable by default), then we should have. Badgerpatrol 15:27, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Comment, my reasons for nominating this article for deletion are made clear. I tried to discuss the notability with the
owner of the article but this was met with reverts. Maybe you should make your decision based on wiki policy rather than your feelings towards me! Is that the 3rd of 4th keep vote that is based on me rather than the article?--Vintagekits 15:34, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
And maybe you should stop insulting every editor who expresses a view contrary to your own.
WP:NPA most emphatically are policies. I have no negative feelings towards you whatesoever. I do have negative feelings towards this nomination, if it was made in bad faith. Your condascending and intolerent attitude is not helping to dissuade me from that view. Badgerpatrol 23:56, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment Please see
here where Kitty states that he forced the AfD]] therefore it was not a bad faith nomination. Can you please now strike through that statement.Vintagekits 13:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
Thats strange - you based your vote completely on your own opinion of my and totally ignored anything to do with the article. Its is not my job to dissude you - policy should do that. If you read the reasons that I have clearly outlined in the nomination and then read all the delete votes rationale then you will see that it is not a bad faith nomination whatsoever. I suggest that you base your future !votes on policy on not on spurious and absurd "default keep" nonsense.--Vintagekits 00:00, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ha ha. OK then, I'm very grateful for your kind suggestions! ;-) If it's not your job to dissuade me, then why don't you keep quiet and let the community have its say, rather than badgering and harassing every editor who dares to disagree with your (come on now) blatantly bad-faith nomination (whatever the rights and wrongs of the deletion). No change of vote. Badgerpatrol 00:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because this is a discussion not a vote. I would rather show your !vote up for the absurd nonsense that it is then change your mind from voting "against me" - way to go, thats very rational!--Vintagekits 00:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
yes, and it's supposed to be rational and sensible discussion based on mutual respect between all parties. As you say, this is a discussion not a strict vote- hence one can discuss any aspect of the aricle or nomination one wants, including process issues. Do I know you? Your extreme rudeness suggests familiarity- I am sorry if I have offended you in some way in the past, as seems to be the case. If I don't know you, then you seem to have a touch of the paranoids- I am not voting against you, I'm voting against your nomination. Try not to take things so personally, it will avoid a great deal of stress. Badgerpatrol 08:51, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Paranoia is an excessive anxiety or fear concerning one's own well-being which is considered irrational and excessive" - not sure I am being paranoid if you read your opening line - "since this seems to be a
potentially bad-faith nom." You make no attempt to address notability just just have a pop at me - on that basis I find it hard not to take it personal. Try and imagine how you would react if the shoe was on the other foot. I have had a number of personal supporters of Kittybrewster (the subject of this article) have a pop at me on this AfD instead of commenting on notability and to be honest I am getting sick of it. Once we get through the initial spurt of personal support/dislike for either myself or Kitty then we will get to the people that really count the neutral observer who can look at this subject objectively and focus on notability because at the moment some of the keep !votes on here are making a mockery of the AfD process!--Vintagekits 09:11, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
You are irrationally conflating criticism of this nomination with attacks on you (= "having a pop at"). My dictionary [1] defines "paranoia" as "1. a mental condition characterized by delusions of persecution, unwarranted jealousy, or exaggerated self-importance. 2 unjustified suspicion and mistrust of others." I don't know you or anything about you, but the way you've conducted yourself here and the fact that you seem to be in conflict over other issues suggests to me that you are trying to game the system to make a
WP:POINT and express your dislike of a fellow editor. If you find it "hard" not to take it personal- try harder. I don't know you and I have absolutely no interest in you. Unless you are going to respond to substantive points in a reasonable, civil, and fair-minded way, then say nothing. If you feel you are being treated with incivility on this AfD, or are being subjected to personal attacks, then take it to an admin. Badgerpatrol 11:30, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
Well as I nominated the article for deletion and you are criticising the potential motives then it is reasonable to state that its in an attack on my integrity. I'll tell you what why don't we both
WP:AGF and take a fresh look at the issue and reconsider your !vote again and base it on the notability of the individual rather than my motives for nominating the article and if you then are at a "keep" position then I will say no more. regards--Vintagekits 11:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Delete but give a one-line mention in a list of baronets or similar. OK, I know nothing about British nobility, so I'll try to approach this from first principles. This person is apparently only notable for being a baronet, a hereditary title of nobility of which there are apparently circa 1,300 holders. Absent any other individual notability, I fail to see why we should list anything else about him except the one thing that distinguishes him from any other British citizen, i.e., his moderately notable title. A list or table of all baronets would be the appropriate format for this. Sandstein 15:50, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep patently rediculous nom, passes
    WP:BIO and the like. Ethical judgements about whether someone merits being notable have no place here, but I'll believe this nom is the result of a gross misunderstanding of policy rather than being done in bad faith to prove a point. I stand by the keep, although I'll say I knew something was rotten in the state of Wikipedia, but it seems I was wrong in my guess about what. WilyD 15:58, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Comment Please see
here where Kitty states that he forced the AfD]] therefore it was not a bad faith nomination. Can you please now strike through that statement.Vintagekits 13:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment, which part of "
WP:BIO and the like" does it pass? I'd love to hear this one!--Vintagekits 16:04, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Comment, it was only a matter of time I suppose - if he is sooooooo high profile why isnt there ONE non trivia source of information on the net about him? I was hardly a surprise that this edit who has been invloved in a ca

nvassing ring with the subject of this article (Kittybrewster) and other editors that have voted to keep including David Lauder and Major Bonkers would come on here and vote on a

WP:ILIKEIT basis - see here for further details--Vintagekits 16:30, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Sorry, I forgot the internet was the be all and end all of notability. Journals are dead. --Counter-revolutionary 16:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Of course you are correct not all info is on the net. Can you name some journals that are accessible to the public which will go to proving his notability?--Vintagekits 16:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you have access to something like JSTOR do a search on there. --Counter-revolutionary 16:52, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A password is needed to use the website - have you got one or can you just tell me what journals he is featured in.--Vintagekits 16:54, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The title of this article gets 19 hits on JSTOR - of course, there being another, far more famous Sir William Arbuthnot who was also a Baronet makes the situation tiresome to research. WilyD 17:21, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've looked at them; the search results are here, for those who can use them. All of them appear to be hits on that phrase as separate words; none of them are about the 20th or 21st centuries; and all but three of them are from before 1971, when the subject cam of age. "William Arbuthnot" Baronet gets me no hits at all. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, ridiculous nomination. Of course baronets are notable! Will we next be deleting article on peers on the grounds that most no longer sit in the Lords? Monarchs do not create heritable titles for fun.
    few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply
    ]
CommentThe only contribution ever by this IP address.--Vintagekits 20:16, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
...another Irish wikipedian...--Counter-revolutionary 18:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Irish peoples votes dont count eh!--Vintagekits 19:08, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete dont think that someone who inherits a title is notable or should be notable for that matter - 91.105.253.55 —
    few or no other edits
    outside this topic.
    • Are you sure you don't just mean the latter? WilyD 20:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
CommentThe only contribution ever by this IP address. - Kittybrewster (talk) 20:13, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • So we should delete
    Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom as well? -- Ben TALK/HIST 08:41, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete per nom.
    few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply
    ]
COMMENT - this is the ONLY CONTRIBUTION by user:84.64.139.42 --Counter-revolutionary 07:53, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break

  • Keep as notabality clearly achieved,
    SqueakBox 19:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Comment - pretty pathetic really - another user who votes on the basis that I call the Falklands the Malvinas!--Vintagekits 19:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop making unsourced personal attacks. I have voted for one reason, because IMO he is notable. Can you please explain what Sir William has to do with the Falkland Islands,
SqueakBox 19:45, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
He has nothing to do with the Falklands but your motivation behind voting has. What section of wiki policy conveys notablity on this person then eh!?--Vintagekits 19:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Absolute rubbish. Now please stop thinking you know what I think or why I act and start behaving reasonably. As he has nothing to do with the Falklands I assume your comment and your accusation that I abuse the afd system is nothing more than an entirely uncalled for personal attack. Please desist,
SqueakBox 19:51, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
OK then, what part of policy are you basing your !vote on then?--Vintagekits 19:59, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Worthy of being notable" at WP:Notability. I tend to think we should take a liberal approach to BLP notability and I would argue all British Barons or Knights pass notability per se, and the Debrett's and Who's Who refs also impress me re his notability,
SqueakBox 20:19, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
So you are !voting on what you think the policy should be and not on current policy! bonkers! As for "I would argue all British Barons or Knights pass notability" this guy aint either of those! "Debrett's and Who's Who refs also impress me re his notability" - these are reference books, just listings with no depth of coverage - have you ever actually looked at a copy? I went and looked at this guys entry its miniscule - would a name in a telephone directory impress you?
here is some information that you should know about the telephone directories that are Who's Who and Debretts--Vintagekits 20:23, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
Notability standards for people are actually really low. Everybody with an entry at [www.baseball-reference.com] passes
WP:BIO very explicitly, even if they only spend a half-inning standing in the outfield and never even saw a baseball. WilyD 20:30, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
Well if you are not happy with that then you and try and change it! That has nothing to do with this person - he never played baseball as a pro!--Vintagekits 20:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have been familiar with Debrett's and particularly Who's Who (which we always had in the house when I was a child) for most of my life, and I agree with Wily that there are plenty of less notable people who still pass our current threshold. There are those who would like to tighten policy on BLP notability but not me,
SqueakBox 20:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
In an AfD one of the arguments it states you shouldnt use is that "others are less notable" and secondly vote on current wiki policy NOT what you want it to be.--Vintagekits 20:41, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I vote on my interpretation of policy,
SqueakBox 20:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
Thats strange because on my talk page here you admit that you havent got a clue what you are talking about with regards this subject and that you know the difference between and Baron, Baronet or a Knight!!--Vintagekits 23:25, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes but I do know my way around wikipedia policy, and my lack of knowledge of British peerage isnt relevant. I read the article and based on my interpretation of policy voted,
SqueakBox 23:31, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
What!?!?! You have now conceed that you did not know what a Baronet was and thought it was a Baron, so I fail to see what exactly it is about the article that makes you want to keep it now that you know this!--Vintagekits 23:34, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well that is simple, I think a baronetcy is also notable, especially after reading some of the other threads here, I think Guy may have a point but otherwise its a clear keep,
SqueakBox 23:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

<remove indent>Even though you now know that a Baronet doesnt carry the "powers" or "importance" that you thought it did until I explained to you on my talk page what a Baronet was!!! OK, lets assume that you do - why do you think that title of Baronet conveys notablity per wiki policy?--Vintagekits 23:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well that comes as no surpirse to me that he holds no real political power and a good thing to, but a baronetcy from what i can see is both unusual and a part of our British culture and so for me that makes him notable,
SqueakBox 23:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
That is possibly the most pathetic reason I have ever heard - so you couldnt come up with any reason so you said its part of "British Culutre" - so are Pearlymen, Smackheads, Gas meter readers etc but does every individual one of those deserve an article. There is no point in discussing this further with you if your are going to come out with totally irrational arguments like that.--Vintagekits 00:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm trying to address the underlying complaint you seem to be making, that nobility don't deserve to be notable, rather than they aren't notable (which is clearly false). This (seems) to come from a misinterpretation of what notable means, which is why I offered an example of the kind of thing that's very explicitly codified as always notable. This guy is certainly not less notable than Clayton Andrews, nor is there less verifiable information available on him. WilyD 20:52, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think you need to read the guideline on arguments to avoid in AfD - this is exactly one case! If you have a problem with the criteria for notability of baseball players then take that up in the relevant place - this person was not a baseball player.--Vintagekits 23:52, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a problem with baseball players. I just want to clear up your misunderstanding of what's going on. WilyD 03:11, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Baronets are not nobility; nor are they notable, unless they do something to become so. I see nothing here. We are not going, I hope, to transcribe the Complete Baronetage; the Complete Peerage is arguable, but most peers at least do something. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:40, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete being a baronet is not notable. Carlossuarez46 20:54, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete neither Debrett's nor Who's Who are actually independent, in that their biographies are sourced primarily from the subject. No non-trivial independent sources. Iron ically there may well be some when this worthy finally croaks, since newspaper obituaries tend to be independent, but right now I see no evidence of the sources required for inclusion. And WP:ARBUTHNOT is not a reason for inclusion either. Guy (Help!) 20:56, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, I agree Who's who do not provide a depth of coverage and are more like listing and not non trivial sources. I also think there needs to be a discussion about there use as references.--Vintagekits 21:02, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per norm, fails
    few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply
    ]
  • Delete As per Maplecelt. You can buy these 'titles' out of tabloid newspapers. Cloveoil 21:54, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, you most certainly can't. Not Baronetcies. Sam Blacketer 21:59, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Wrong again - this is from the lead of the
        James I of England in 1611 in order to raise funds." - and with the new cash for questions scandal I have even less respect for these meaningless titles especially in the mordern era.--Vintagekits 22:05, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
        ]
        • You can buy them on Ebay too! One Night In Hackney303 22:08, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I thought you were joking until I read the link!!--Vintagekits 22:11, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • I'm sorry, the information in that news story is incorrect. It refers not to a Baronetcy but to a Scottish feudal Barony. You cannot now buy a Baronetcy. The fact you may have been able to do so in 1611 is neither here nor there. Sam Blacketer 22:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • They were, as is well known, available for cash as recently as 1921; are you prepared to vow that there is no chance of scandal with the present Honours List? More to the point, a baronetcy testifies to the notability of his father; in the modern world, notability is not hereditary. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:27, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • I'm in no position to speak for any government but as the number of new Baronets made in the past 40 years is precisely 1, and he was also unique as the husband of a Prime Minister, I think it's fairly clear no Baronetcies are being sold nowadays. Sam Blacketer 22:34, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Are you sure about that!?--Vintagekits 22:37, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                    • I'm afraid I am getting very tired of all this. The story you link to does not mention Baronetcies at all. The Baronetcy had practically died out in 1964, was briefly revived in 1990 for one last fling, and is now moribund: no more are going to be created. It is not therefore possible to become the holder of a Baronet save by inheriting a title; you cannot buy the title in any way. I frankly see this as a distraction from the issue of notability of Baronets and I dislike the way this discussion is being sidetracked into a personal and political struggle. Sam Blacketer 22:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                        • Sidetracked? If it was always thus because they were struggling at the village pump, maybe their problem has been dressing up a bad faith nom as objective. Especially after the afd for the even more private Sir Keith Arbuthnot, 8th Baronet failed so spectacularly. They should now avoid interjections (some hope) and let process and the closer decide. - Kittybrewster (talk) 00:06, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Notable individual because of the titles he holds. Also potentially a bad faith nomination, especially based on the personal attacks made on editors who do not agree. J Milburn 22:19, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please see
here where Kitty states that he forced the AfD]] therefore it was not a bad faith nomination. Can you please now strike through that statement.Vintagekits 13:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment, another editor that is more focused on my and not policy. You say that he is notable! Why is he notable and what is notable about the title? Please explain yourself - remember this is a discussion not a vote per se.--Vintagekits 22:23, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Whether or not the nomination was forced, the way you are handling this is rather aggressive. We know that you want reasoning, yet we also know that no reasoning we provide will be satisfactory, because you seem to have already decided that this article needs to go. This person is a knight, and a baronet. These are not titles that are given to people who dive in a lake to save a dog- they are the modern equivilent of the nobility, and people holding both of these titles deserve a place on Wikipedia, I am amazed that there is any doubt about that. Please feel free to tell me if I have missed something, but calm down, stop attacking editors that disagree with you, and stop demanding reasoning from everyone who does not type an essay. In fact, worse than that, anyone who just says 'Delete, non notable.' you leave alone. Take a break- let the AfD run its course. J Milburn 15:30, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:Milburn contrary to what you might think I have no problem whatsoever with people voting "keep" I just dont think havent heard one decent argument to back it up that doesnt boil down to
WP:ILIKEIT. Secondly he is not a knight he is a Baronet - as for "These are not titles that are given to people who dive in a lake to save a dog- they are the modern equivilent of the nobility, and people holding both of these titles deserve a place on Wikipedia" - yes that may be the case for 1st baronets but this isnt a 1st Baronet he is a 2nd Baronet so he did even less than "save a dogs life" - he simply inherited the title.--Vintagekits 15:36, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment: Oh, just inherited it? Goodbye
Lizzie. In all seriousness though, have I missed something? If he is no knight, where has the 'Sir' come from? In response to your initial point- many people (including 86.13.133.245, an IP who just voted and has no other edits) are saying 'Delete, non notable.' This is FAR worse than me saying 'Keep, notable for reason X', whether or not I write an essay on it. You seem to believe that because they are agreeing with you, it doesn't matter that they are offering no arguments. J Milburn 15:43, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment, Ould Lizzie inherited a title that gives parlimentary and legal power, a baronet does not carry this. If you read the Baronet article or the first copy of posts in this AfD and that states it also - although baronets carry the title "Sir" it is not considered a knighthood. Many people mix up Baron's and Baronet's they are completely different, a Baron traditionally got a seat in the House of Lords (therefore automatically notable) a Baronet is purely a cerimonal title.--Vintagekits 15:49, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Comment: I understand the difference, and I was obviously joking about QE2, but I did not realise that baronets were automatically counted as sirs. Regardless, I think nobility, and I see baronets as perfect examples of nobility, deserve a place on Wikipedia. The fact that there are sources readily available backs this up. J Milburn 16:10, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Comment: Thats fair enough but you must recognise that that boils down to
Arbuthnot Baronets I see no reason for keeping the article for the individual when it could be merged to that. I just think it is absurd to convey automatic notability (especially in this era) to every single person that hold and meaningless and powerless inherited title, I cant get my head around it at all to be honest.--Vintagekits 16:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment: Well, as much as I generally dispise saying something like this- I have said my part, and you have said yours. The community can read my points, and the points of others who believe this should be kept, and they can read your points. The community will decide, and I am sure that the community will make the right decision. J Milburn 16:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is the sources are not independent because the entries are filled out by the entrants themselves and also have no depth of coverage and are just listings.--Vintagekits 00:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is actually little different to the way basic biographical information gets in e.g. a newspaper biography or interview. The information is obtained from the subject and is then fact-checked (to varying degrees of accuracy, depending on the publication). I must say, also, that I am personally very dubious about the way you INSTANTLY had to go leave a message on my talk page about my opinion here. This only lends credence to the opinion that you care about this deletion to a degree much greater than it deserves, and for personal reasons. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 00:35, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Any chance you could stick to wikipolicy rather than supposing my motives. Who's who and Debrett are 1. of dubious reliability and 2. lack any depth of coverage. That pretty much says it all.--Vintagekits 00:39, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect to
    Arbuthnot Baronets article satisfies that, an seperate article is not warrented. Russeasby 00:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Comment. Most of them have nothing to do with Arbuthnot Baronets. - Kittybrewster (talk) 00:24, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well this one does, and this is the AFD for him, so I still suggest merge. Russeasby 00:28, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, are you saying the the
Arbuthnot Baronets article??--Vintagekits 00:30, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment that is frankly absurd - why dont we say all dog owners are notable so we can avoid have to discuss that also. Please base your !vote of policy!--Vintagekits 00:53, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
More seriously: every baronet who ever lived is notable, every one of the thousands of them? Will we have this discussion over knights next? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:58, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know, I was pretty surprised by the comment also especially as DGG is an experienced editor.--Vintagekits 01:00, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Of course, experienced editors would never have an opinion that differed from yours. J Milburn 15:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the person is not notable.--
    padraig3uk 01:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete, I fail to see what makes the person notable apart from the fact that he inherited his father's baronetcy --Barryob Vigeur de dessus 01:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stong Keep: A debate about whether baronets are inherently notable belongs elsewhere. The nom's stated opinion that baronets are not notable does not make them not so; nor does his opinion that publications like Who's Who and Debrett's fail to meet the guidelines for sources make them fail. He claims to be avoiding WP:Idon'tlikeit but I have yet to see a single fact asserted, only opinions as to notability based on his personal opinions of the British establishment, which have no place here. My personal opinion is that this AfD is a personal attack on Kittybrewster, and should be dismissed. Laura1822 02:18, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There has been a long litany of AFDs like this relating to titled Britons of one sort or another involving editors deeply interested in the British nobility and those bent on erasing articles of that ilk, now culminating in this AfD on an article about a man who's a dedicated contributer. It is hard, therefore, to form any sort of coherent or disinterested opinion about this AfD. The best thing that can be done for this kind of situation, I think, is to reject the AfD on account of a bad-faith nomination rooted in a nasty and mutual dispute. Right now, we are dealing with a well-written, thoroughly sourced article, although it is arcane and short. Atop that, we have a custom of defaulting towards keeping an article when there is suspicion around its deletion, because deletion is regarded as damning and permanent. There, in short, is my reason for keeping the article: Now the editors involved in this dispute should take a deep breath and work together on solving the underlying policy dispute.
    -- Thesocialistesq/M.Lesocialiste 04:20, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Comment Please see
here where Kitty states that he forced the AfD]] therefore it was not a bad faith nomination. Can you please now strike through that statement.Vintagekits 13:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
Further Comment. If, for some confounded legalistic reason, it is thought necessary to have a provisional reason in policy, I'd cite this section of
-- Thesocialistesq/M.Lesocialiste 04:27, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment - Once again another member of the Baronet Project feels it necessary to divert from the notability issue and rather focus on me! If another editor had nominated it for deletion then would you have considered otherwise? The sources provided are not 1. independent, because the subject of the entry writes his/her their own entry, 2. reliable, because of 1. and finally 3. carry about as much "depth of coverage" as a telephone directory - to prove this ALL of the entries in each of the sources given provide the exact same four line entry almost word for word.--Vintagekits 12:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The point I'm trying to make is that there are no serious notability guidelines for this situation and that we shouldn't pretend that there are and argue over thin air in this case. Instead, we should leave the article here for now, as their well-written and well-sourced enough, and work on actually establishing clear guidelines in good faith.
-- Thesocialistesq/M.Lesocialiste 23:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
COMMENT - this is the ONLY CONTRIBUTION by user:coeur-sang --Counter-revolutionary 07:53, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per reasons given in deletion nomination. This person has done nothing notable other than have a parent who has a title. GiollaUidir 10:24, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Apart from some rather pointless tittle-tattle, it appears, in the main, that the 'deleters' do not give much importance to titles inherited from the past whereas the 'keepers' wish to perpetuate our British history. An encyclopedia is to colate and impart knowledge and if it is with data on the past it should be encouraged and supported as: it is our past which forges our future.
    few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply
    ]
Comment - potential sock/meatpuppet this is the ONLY CONTRIBUTION by User:Alastair Noble this year and the only previous edit was in November 2006.--Vintagekits 10:43, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, yes, well spotted.--Vintagekits 12:46, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, you are quite correct - this editor has just voted to keep both Arbuthnot family articles - interesting! --Vintagekits 10:50, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, just spotted that also myself - how embarrasing to have to use socks in this manner!--Vintagekits 10:57, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per norm, does not come up to scratch on notability and the title that is held is not important, as a few have said already.Tiocfaidh Ár Lá! 11:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
...another Irish Republican Wikipedian. --Counter-revolutionary 11:33, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another
personal attack. One Night In Hackney303 11:34, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
Since when was being an Irish Republican a personal attack? Yet again, your probably right; if you called me one I'd be very offended! --Counter-revolutionary 11:39, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since always? Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views. One Night In Hackney303 11:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I think we have to accept baronetcy (even inherited) as evidence of notability. Deb 11:51, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, why would we do that (especially for a 2nd or subsequent Baronet i.e. those who have inherited the title rather than earned or being bestowed with it) as there is no policy in place to give them automatic notability and secondly it is a purely ceremonial title which carries no Parliamentary or legal powers.--Vintagekits 12:00, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In the meantime, it is clear from the nomination and from the history of this dispute that deleting this article would set a precedent which would likely lead to the wholesale deletion of articles about baronets, and it seems to me that it would be a seriously retrograde step to delete so much material from the encyclopaedia on the basis of such an unfocused discussion as this AfD, which I feel has overall shed more heat than light. In a case such as this, where there are wider issues of policy at stake, it's much better to sort those out first before making far-reaching decisions on the particular example.
A few further points:
Very well put. I for one agree with every word of that. Badgerpatrol 13:51, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That kind of is the opposite of what you said
here in the discussion on 2nd Baronets.--Vintagekits 13:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
That was an early contribution to a long and useful discussion in which I found that some of the issues clarified for me. As I said above, I do still lean towards the view that 2nd and subsequent baronets are not notable per current guidelines, but after reflecting on all the discussions about notability, I now think that we can boil most of it down to the relatively simple question of whether whether we count entries in guides such as Debretts as "non-trivial".
I try not to approach these discussions with the idea that I have an answer which I must persuade others to accept, and this is one of the occasions where my thinking has evolved after reading all the other contributions. It's disappointing to see that some other editors appear to have more rigidly fixed stances, and in particular that some contributors seem to be basing their !votes on their views about about the merits or demerits of the system of baronetage. I think that this issue can be resolved in a much more neutral way. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am just finding it a little hard to take you serious when you !vote "strong keep" and then say "I do still lean towards the view that 2nd and subsequent baronets are not notable per current guidelines" - we are voting on current wiki policy and guidlines not what it might/may/should/could be. --Vintagekits 14:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Vintagekits, you appear to have missed my point, so let me try again to clarify it:
  1. As far as I can see, the crucial question is whether we should count Debrett's etc as non-trivial sources when assessing biographies. The fate of this article could be decided very clearly if we had a policy or guideline to answer to that narrow question.
  2. This AfD does not seem like a suitable place to answer that question: it's a decision which affects a whole swathe of articles (which go way beyond baronets) and should be taken in another forum, probably as an amendment to the guidelines. We could then consider that crucial point in more detail.
  3. I do lean towards the view that the guidelines should not regard Debretts etc as non-trivial sources, but there also seems to me to be some good arguments for the opposing case. I want to hear all those cases in more detail before finally making up my mind.
  4. You are right: we are voting on current wiki policy and guidlines … but they don't seem to me to be anywhere near clear enough on this point. Where there is a lack of clarity on a point which affects so many articles (probably thousands), I think that it would be deeply destructive to start a deleting content from the encyclopedia.
I hope that clarifies things. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:20, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'll tell ya what, I'm going to do some statistically analysis on his entry in debretts and who's and photograph them also. It will show you how embrassing and trivial it is to rely on SELF WRITTEN miniscule entries in a directory for some sort of notability! Additonally after the last AfD editors also said subject to the issue being further clarified etc etc - it never was.--Vintagekits 15:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2nd Arbitrary break

  • Keep- as a notable businessman, a Baronet, and in the Order of precedence of England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Astrotrain 14:00, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. "Notability" is not about whether Wikipedians feel that someone deserves an article, it's about whether there are sufficient sources to write an article. All baronets wind up in at least three sources I can think of off the top of my head, and others as well. - Nunh-huh 14:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've done my reading, thanks. I think you need to let people express their opinions rather than try to rebut everyone you disagree with. - Nunh-huh 14:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Using the logic of the nominator, this is a completely invalid vote, as no reasoning is applied. J Milburn 15:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: IP has made no other edits. J Milburn 15:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per User:BrownHairedGirl and, on top of that, really, people, go have some tea and calm down.A Musing 15:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctant Delete. Reluctant because Vintagekits has behaved in an appalling fashion in this discussion (is it really necessary to aggressively challenge every Keep vote?), but Delete because the primary assertion to notability here appears to be of the "baronetcy confers notability" variety, and I can't find justification for that in existing policies and guidelines (and I admit that the
    conflict of interest issues here are a bit troubling). I'm willing to reconsider pending further evidence on the nature of the references used, however - based on what I've seen thus far, I'm not certain that they qualify as independent, but I'll be monitoring this discussion and taking note of further evidence to the contrary. JavaTenor 17:09, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep — enough non-Wikipedia derived Google hits to satisfy notability, IMO. Andrwsc 18:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with JavaTenor but come down to weak keep, as I think there are enough sources to just about satisfy notability. The behaviour of Vintagekits is worrying and quite unacceptable. He can nominate something for deletion but should then sit back and respect the views of the community. There is almost a case for closing this as no conseensus and bringing it back for further discussion but with a ban on Vintagekits from participating in the discussion more than a single entry expressing his view, as he may well be intimidating editors here from voting to keep the article. --Bduke 23:27, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree, I have been OTT - hence the reason for my explanation here and my further explanation on the talk page.--Vintagekits 13:08, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • If so, he doesn't seem to be doing a very effective job, does he? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:07, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I actually think he is probably encouraging more keeps then deletes. Such aggresive campaining tends to turn many editors off, suspecting bias and bad faith(which does seem to play a part here, though personally that aside I still stick by my delete vote). The AFD at this point will play out and probably close as no consensus(thus keep) via normal procedure, no need to close early. If someone feels warrented it can be nominated again later. Russeasby 02:34, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thats fair enough as long as a wider debate is initiated on neutral territory regarding the notability of Baronets, 1st, 2nd and subsequent.--Vintagekits 13:11, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per norm, does not come up to scratch on notability and the title that is held is not important.82.41.64.157 13:35, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to that list of Arbuthnot baronets. After all this discussion, nobody has added anything to the article that demonstrates notability.
  • Comment With all this discussion and with about 1,299 other baronets out there, wouldn't it be worthwhile for Wikipedia to have a special rule for baronets in WP:Notability? Even if it's just a line saying "these provisions also apply to baronets" (alternately, "The following rules apply to baronets..." or "The rules don't apply to baronets because ..."). Might save time in the future. Just a thought. Oh, I see this point's been covered. Never mind. (another Emily Litella moment...) Noroton 16:08, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom, no does not meet
    WP:N .Logan2 16:48, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]

—

few or no other edits
outside this topic.

  • I'm going to say Keep for now. The article is sourced, and this AfD has clearly been poisoned. If we can get clearer notability guidelines about baronets, and clear up whether Debretts and the like are notable sources, we can always revisit the issue later. --kingboyk 18:41, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per BHG et al. No junk mail please. Johnbod 20:48, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The idea that Wikipedia would decree that Burke's Peerage and Debrett's are anything other than the standard reference works that they are is bizarre and unreasonable. I'd like to think that more reasonable heads would prevail. - Nunh-huh 03:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This member of the Baronet project is completly entitle to his !vote however please see
here where Kitty himself states that he forced the AfD and that it was not a bad faith nomination. Can you please now strike through that statement.--Vintagekits 13:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
I'm entitled to my opinion, but you think it's wrong so I should strike it out? I think not, somehow. As far as I can see your entire involvement with the Baronetcies WikiProject has been bad faith, and you've only ever been concerned with attacking an institution you dislike rather than trying to improve this encyclopaedia. If you kept to working in areas you actually liked rather than finding ones you don't and doing your best to disrupt them we'd all be a lot better off. Proteus (Talk) 13:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are perfectly entitled to your opinion as to the notability of the article in question and I have stopped questioning editors in that respect, however, when you state that this is a bad faith nomination then that is a different matter. The subject of this article has even stated himself that he purposefully forced the nomination and that it is not a bad faith nomination. As for my work on the "Baronetcies WikiProject" - I have not acted in bad faith, I have tried to bring some balance to it. I see it as a project that is out of control and without restraint. It churns out 100's stubs for individuals that have no notability except that they have inherited a title without an power, legal, parlimentary or otherwise. If you havent the grace to retract that part of your statement like others have then fine let it stand it just goes to show who it is around here that is really acting in bad faith.--Vintagekits 13:58, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We both know that's nonsense, but I'm not going to argue with you, as you've demonstrated on many occasions how pointless that is. Your contribution history speaks for itself, however, and I would invite anyone who wants to know how Vintagekits has behaved on Wikipedia to take a look through it and decide for themselves what has motivated this campaign. Proteus (Talk) 14:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have said enough already (probably too much infact) and will let the facts speak for themselves - Kitty stated here and here where he states "That is why I impelled VK towards AFD rather than debating my own notability (which would have been COI). I thought it best that others determine the matter", that he purposefully forced the AfD. Therefore your allegations that it was a bad faith nomination are incorrect. You are perfectly entitled to your keep !vote but to say it was a bad faith nomination is incorrect and that is the point I was making. I rest my case.--Vintagekits 14:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If he is truly notable then why is no source listed other than peerage directories and who's who (which include all peers and baronets regardless whether they have done anything of note) and a small charity? Delete unless more substantial sources are added. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 15:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: No, Who's Who does not include all peers and baronets, only those the editors regard as notable. In addition, and this possibly answers some of the other sneers above, if baronets are not notable why are they considered essential for any of the publications you refer to? The thing is, how many books - of any description - do we appear in, you and I? Regards, David Lauder 20:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Stop harassing editors that !vote delete! ;) --Vintagekits 20:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment And stop removing the {{
    spa}} templates I added, especially considering I added them to everyone regardless of which way they !voted. One Night In Hackney303 20:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Reply:You have my word that I did not remove those. I have no idea how that happened. Certainly the entry at the bottom of the page is mine. Possibly some sort of glitch? But I did not remove those. I cannot explain what has happened there. David Lauder 21:16, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notability seems to be established (knighthood, baronetcy, who's who). I wonder why this is generating so much heat? Drmaik 18:51, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - as long as I remember, the prevailing thought (and mine also) is that baronets (like hereditary peers and members of the royal family, even those that died in infancy!) are inherently notable. ugen64 05:13, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I am not questioning your !vote but I would like to point out that nowhere on wiki is there any policy to give automatic notability to minor members of the peerage or the nobility. Additionally to compare a Baronet to the Royal family is like comparing the President of the United States to a local town councillor in Bridlington. Even under the failed proposal of
    WP:BIO - from now on I will let make others make up their own minds on that instead of vociferously voicing my opinion on that. Again I am not questioning your !vote I am just pointing out to the closing admin that there is not policy or guideline to state that Baronets get automatic notability. ugen64 if you or anyone else would like to instigate or join in a discussion to build a policy on this then I am sure there would be many parties interested in joining in that discussion but as it stands under current wiki policy there is nothing which states that Baronets get automatic notability. --Vintagekits 09:49, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • There is a big difference between a Duke and a Baronet. Its like a footballer for
    Leigh RMI.--Vintagekits 21:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Comment: Of approximately 215 comments on this page, 65 are by User:Vintagekits - 65:150 is quite a ratio - especially for someone who has several times said they'd stop commenting! BastunBaStun not BaTsun 21:31, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for counting, many of those were tweaks to my posts, fixing spelling mistakes and formatting. Additionally I said I would stop questioning other editors votes which I have. But if an issue needs clarification or if I am asked a direct question for another editor then I should and will comment. Thanks for your interest.--Vintagekits 21:51, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No - comments, not edits. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 21:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment by the subject of the article. It seems to me everybody has now contributed their pennyworth so it is legitimately “my turn” before the thing is closed. First, I am convinced this was a rancorous nomination in bad faith although I believe VK thought it might be insufficiently notable to pass
    WP:AGF or even demand a review of some kind (and abide by the outcome and then let it drop). He does not do that; he consistently revisits dead issues. He does not recognise that birds of a feather flock together (as do many Irish republicans, apparently) and that some of us monitor each others’ contributions. He should not react by stalking editors or articles I have contributed to, adding ludicrous nn and fact tags (one of which questioned a date of death in 1862). My problem is some of the outrageous remarks VK makes [2]

[3] [4] [5]

On the positive side, User:BrownHairedGirl has initiated a very helpful discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Notability#Independent.2Bnon_trivial.3F_Debretts.2C_Whos_Who_etc And

Dashwood Baronets of West Wycombe. Also we seem constructively, de facto, to be forming policy on the hoof regarding the notability of Baronets in general. - Kittybrewster (talk) 10:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sir_William_Arbuthnot,_2nd_Baronet&oldid=1140251033"