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 redirect. Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 03:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sir James Stronge, 10th Baronet[edit]

Redirect to Stronge Baronets. Non-notable person, fails WP:BIO - titles do not confer notability - Tiswas^(t) 19:40, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as WP:BLP violation; unsourced living person bio with contentious claims; even if that were cured; notability is not inherited at this level. Carlossuarez46 19:47, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Try reading BLP first. It says that an editor may "remove any contentious material that is unsourced", not speedy delete the whole article. That means one sentence should be deleted, not the whole lot. His notability is a separate issue but please don't use policies to "support" your opinion that actually don't support your opinion. -- Necrothesp 00:14, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks for your uncivil comment; I have read BLP. How other than deleting the article (which we ought to do anyway because he's not notable) do you propose to remove the crap from our "history"? Carlossuarez46 20:50, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Nothing uncivil about my comment, other than you not agreeing with it. I'm simply tired of people claiming that policies or guidelines justify their deletionist opinions when they actually don't. All that was needed was the deletion of a single sentence (which has now been done). It no longer fails BLP. Simple. Is your comment about "deleting crap from our history" supported in BLP? I don't think it is, otherwise it wouldn't be worded as it is (and as I just quoted it). It would instead say an editor may "delete any article that has any unsourced contentious material in it whatsoever". It doesn't, whether you want it to or not. And as I said, his notability is a separate issue and not one I was commenting on. -- Necrothesp 23:02, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Think as you wish, you're wrong. I didn't suggest the mere appearance of an unsourced BLP issue leads to the deletion of the article, here, however, the only possibly notable thing about this dude is a BLP violation and that violation dates to the earliest formation of his article. Carlossuarez46 21:15, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I think you'll find that your comment was "Speedy Delete as WP:BLP violation", so that's exactly what you suggested. -- Necrothesp 14:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as nom suggests - this definitely seems to have BLP issues, and there's not much notable about the subject even if he does have a title. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 20:22, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep re notability as Baronet, SqueakBox 21:59, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, turns out that he is not actually a Baronet at all! For this reason I am changing my !vote to a straight delete - what say you?--Vintagekits 02:24, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Stronge Baronets. According to that article, this guy's baronetcy is "unproven"; and if one follows the link on that word, one finds that the Stronge baronetcy has been ~~officially vacant~~ "dormant" for about 25 years and that he is not therefore a recognized (by whoever officially recognizes such things) baronet. Deor 22:10, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There is nothing here worthy of retention, merge on to a general page for the holders of this baronetcy. In fact I think the information given is intrusive into the life and privacy of a person who has clearly neither sought nor earned publicity or notability of any kind. Giano 22:40, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Deor. Agree that the article contains definite privacy problems as it stands. JavaTenor 23:08, 14 June 2007 (UTC)|[reply]
Redirect or merge, since he should be mentioned in the article--but the present article has a simple and clear BLP problem paragraph that I have just deleted from the article. Why didn't anyone delete it before, instead of just talking about it? I don't think there's enough for an article in any case, with or without it.DGG 00:31, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable given what he succeeded in the wake of, i.e. a double murder. --Counter-revolutionary 01:12, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Redirect This was really unnecessary as it has already been determined in numerous afds now that Peers, Baronets or any other type of noble who have very little notability except their title should be redirected to the relevant page for that title. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 02:35, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if that is the standard for this level of nobleman. Being an American I have no idea what a baronet is, except it must be somewhat lower in importance than a baron. Steve Dufour 04:40, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

* Concur -- the baronetage was a fund-raising stunt of James I and since then has provided a classic example of self-perpetuating parasitism. Not worthy of the Wiki, nor, in fact, of real-world surivival. Let us begin here, with one individual, then remove all holders of this title, then all baronets, and finally every article dealing with the anti-democratic English aristocracy -- SockpuppetSamuelson

Well I think that comment just speaks for itself! No reason actually given except a clear anti-aristocracy bias!--Counter-revolutionary 09:30, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have nothing against baronets and I didn't mean to imply that I did. Steve Dufour 15:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. A baronet is basically an hereditary knight, and is superior to all but one level of knighthood, but is not a peer and was never entitled to a seat in the House of Lords (which is what makes British peers inherently notable as members of a national legislature). Therefore the person actually created a baronet is notable for being given the honour in the first place, but his successors cannot really be classed as inherently notable (although some obviously disagree). SockpuppetSamuelson's comments are not worthy of comment, of course, except to say that people created baronets in the last two centuries have predominantly been deserving of the honour. -- Necrothesp 16:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Counter-rev. Notable and referenced. This is not a paper cyclopedia. - Kittybrewster (talk) 06:41, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since you appear to know something about baronetcies, could you provide some clarification on the status of his claim to succession? (i.e. what is the meaning of unproven in this context)? JavaTenor 06:51, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It implies that although his lineage is clear (set down in Burke's Peerage online, Cracroft, Debrett's, etc), he has not gone to the expense of proving his rightful claim to his cousin's baronetcy by formally proving that Sir Norman predeceased Sir James (who had no opportunity to lay formal claim) and that there are no intervening entitled potential claimants. It is relevant in Court circulars, London Gazette, etc. Another example of an unproven baronet is Jonathon Porritt. - Kittybrewster (talk) 09:38, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable Trugster 09:44, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Nothing really notable about this individual. No achievements or even anything of minor public interest. Kitty, Jonathon Porritt is not really a valid comparison as he is notable in several ways and just also happens to be a baronet. Galloglass 09:50, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ~~and redirect~~~~, the position of a Baronet is notable~~.--Vintagekits 14:10, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, so why delete?!--Counter-revolutionary 14:29, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you clarify the question please.--Vintagekits 15:18, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If "the position of a baronet is notable" why delete this article? --Counter-revolutionary 15:26, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake obviously it should say it is NOT notable.--Vintagekits 15:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have changed me !vote to a straight Delete from Delete and merge because it turns out that he isnt even a Baronet at all! How embrassing!--Vintagekits 02:24, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletions. -- -- pb30<talk> 21:43, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and merge the info here could be merged into the Sir James Stronge, 9th Baronet of Tynan article, seeing as there is no proof to the claim of title. Either that or delete.--padraig3uk 14:23, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Sir James Stronge, 9th Baronet of Tynan or Stronge Baronets article. Currently, he appears to only be claimant to the title and there no indication of other offices, actions, or writing that would assert notability. Edward321 23:53, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- notable as a Baronet of the United Kingdom Astrotrain 08:28, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - go one Astrotrain - even if a Baronet got automatic notability (which it doesnt) but it turns out this guy isnt a Baronet at all - almost laughable!--Vintagekits 02:26, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prove he isn't. That remark could be anti- WP:BLP. --Counter-revolutionary 02:31, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, the burden of proof it not on me - the burden of proof is on those that wish to claim he is something he isnt.--Vintagekits 02:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We've provided the sources; Burkes, Debrett's &c., the say he's a baronet! --Counter-revolutionary 02:43, 20 June 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.