User:Newprogressive/Baronet notability

This sub-userpage is intended as a collection of the various precedents, half-precedents and personal opinions that have been expressed on the issue of the notability of baronets:

Articles for deletion/Sir Keith Arbuthnot, 8th Baronet
Keep - although no claim to notability other than his baronetcy.

Articles for deletion/Aylesbury Baronets

 * Result was Keep, seemingly on premise of promised expansion. Some argument as to whether a baronet is notable, though some acceptance of baronetcies being notable.

Relevant opinions

 * This article is part of WikiProject Baronetcies [...] - Kittybrewster 00:06, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * While a baronet itself is not automatically notable, a baronetcy it is in any case. Phoe  talk 13:33, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * A Baronet is notable, like it or not. David Lauder 17:18, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Notable by definition under WP:NOBLE and as a part of WikiProject Baronetcies. Laura1822 21:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Gillis Baronets
Whilst the articles associated with these deletions are hoaxes, some contributors implied opposition to the inclusion of baronets simply for being baronets, with the usual support coming from others:
 * This is not a genealogy service.  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 17:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * no interest to anybody who would not prefer a genealogy site over wikipedia Alf Photoman  22:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * If it was genuine I would be arguing strong keep, it is not however.--Couter-revolutionary 09:46, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Votes for deletion/Wynn Baronets
Kept after expansion which demonstrated the notability of the family in Wales.


 * we've generally recognized the right of such articles to exist. [...] Mackensen (talk) 05:24, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Allen Williamson Grey
The father in law of a baronet is not notable due to that fact. No opposition raised to this point.