Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:56, 26 April 2007

Sir William Arbuthnot, 2nd Baronet

Sir William Arbuthnot, 2nd Baronet (edit | 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 had a claim to notability through the title but all subsequent holders do not. 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 'Misplaced Pages is not a genealogical database'. As the article offers no other claims to notability the subject fails WP:N and WP:BIO and even the defunct proposal of WP:NOBLE.

Additionally the sources provided have dubious reliability as the information provided in Who's Who and Debretts give no "depth of coverage" like a telephone directory as is merely a genealogy listing and also they are to some large degree self published works and they are compiled from questionnaires that are sent out. I have checked the internet and written press for an 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. Vintagekits 11:58, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Notability is not only something which is gained by a person's own actions, it can be thrust upon people without any voluntary action of their own. The fact that a significant number of people hold Baronets, regardless of what they have done, to be interesting and worthy of record means that a holder of a Baronetcy is notable. The article is acceptably sourced for a biography of a living person; while Who's Who and Debretts do rely on the subjects of entries for updates, they will check and refuse inaccuracies. (People claiming bogus honours do not get in). Sam Blacketer 12:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

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 Baron, Earl and Duke. Additionally it goes against what you said when there was a discussion as you the notability of 2nd and subsequent Baronets. front the Baronet page - A baronetcy is unique in two ways:

• it is a hereditary honour but is not a peerage and has never entitled the holder to a seat in the House of Lords; and
• a baronet is styled 'Sir' but a baronetcy is not considered an order of knighthood. --Vintagekits 13:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

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)

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 WP:IDONTLIKEIT - which you will soon see is the main motivation that other editors will you in order to keep the article. I have also stated that I would be happy to see the article merged to 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)

• Delete As per nom. I see no notability in any of the facts stated in the article. DES 12:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete No assertion of notability, no evidence of multiple independent non-trivial sources, fails WP:BIO as well. This article has conflict of interest problems as well. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 12:52, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't see any conflicts of interest. Kittybrewster may have edited it but his changes were all minor formatting, presentational and technical. This isn't prohibited. Sam Blacketer 13:16, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Links to own sites? Removing {{nn}} tags? Creating the article in the first place? To the best of my knowledge a conflict of interest has never actually been declared by Kittybrewster, and it's a clear conflict of interest in my opinion and I've raised it on the COI noticeboard accordingly. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 13:23, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

• 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. Attempting to twist and turn the umpteen Misplaced Pages 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)

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)

If only you would. --Major Bonkers (talk) 14:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Now, now - please remember WP:CIVIL--Vintagekits 14:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. I'd be more inclined to agree with the points made by Vintagekits, who displays an admirable interest in the WikiProject Baronetcies, 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.--Major Bonkers (talk) 14:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

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)

The guideline in question is WP:POINT. And I am not a member of WikiProject Baronetcies. Please try to AGF. --Major Bonkers (talk) 14:27, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

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)

• Keep The title confers notability so the article is legitimate, someone doesn't have to cure cancer to be a notable princess. Nick mallory 14:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

Comment. Really!!

• Comment/Question - How are baronets in anyway different than Prescriptive Baronys from the perspective of wikipolicy? New Progressive 15:22, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

A Baronetcy cannot be bought. - Kittybrewster (talk) 15:26, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

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)

• 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)

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)

• 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)

• Comment Redirect to Arbuthnot Baronets seems like an obvious solution then? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 15:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, indeed: Redirect to Arbuthnot Baronets. Sandstein 16:15, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

• 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. WilyD 15:58, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

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)

• Strong Keep, high profile baronet. Apparently a bad faith nom resulting from class hate. --Counter-revolutionary 16:22, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

• 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?--Vintagekits 16:30, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

If you have access to something like JSTOR do a search on there. --Counter-revolutionary 16:52, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

• 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.80.44.211.24 16:26, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

CommentThe only contribution ever by this IP address.--Vintagekits 20:16, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, of course he qualifies as notable — no question. --Bill Reid | Talk 17:03, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

This isnt a !vote per se - please explain why you believe this!--Vintagekits 19:09, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination. A mere directory listing in the telephone book-like peerage directory does not satisfy WP:N. It is as poor an excuse for "inherent notability" as a listing of someone in Daughters of the American Revolution would be. Merely having an ancestor who was given a an honorary title does not satisfy WP:BIO. And there have been way too many violations of WP:NPA and WP:AGF in this discussion. Edison 17:27, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete No notability other than a title.--Domer48 18:37, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

...another Irish wikipedian...--Counter-revolutionary 18:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Irish peoples votes dont count eh!--Vintagekits 19:08, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete dont think that someone who inherits a title is notable or should be notable for that matter - 91.105.253.55
  • Are you sure you don't just mean the latter? WilyD 20:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

CommentThe only contribution ever by this IP address. - Kittybrewster (talk) 20:13, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom.84.64.139.42 19:22, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as notabality clearly achieved, SqueakBox 19:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

OK then, what part of policy are you basing your !vote on then?--Vintagekits 19:59, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

"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)

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)

Notability standards for people are actually really low. Everybody with an entry at 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)

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)

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)

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)

I vote on my interpretation of policy, SqueakBox 20:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

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)

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 Baronyetage; the Complete Peerage is arguable, but most peers at least do something. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:40, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete being a baronet is not notable. Carlossuarez46 20:54, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete neither Debrett's nro 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)

• AfD debates (Biographical)
• AfD debates