Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/6th Baronet


 * 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 delete. clear consensus  DGG ( talk ) 04:04, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

6th Baronet

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This could refer to many more 6th Baronets who have an article and even more who do not. Of course some may say that we should expand the page but it is not really needed. Nobody would search for a list of all 6th Baronets with an article. Also keep in mind that this is the only page of this fashion currently existing and that it is this way since 2009. The Traditionalist (talk) 22:57, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep as creator. I created it as a disambiguation page because the article I was reading only described someone as the "6th Baronet", who had died, without supplying the surname. I had to look at all the baronets with biographies to match the one that died the year of the article and then make sure it matched the maiden name of his wife. I don't think my problem is unique, reference books and contemporary newspapers expect a certain knowledge from the reader that may not be universally known 100 years later. There are more 6ths, and that is why Wikipedia is never complete. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:45, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, I do not think that it is very constructive to create a new disambiguation page because of one instance in one article. Besides, there were many more notable 6th Baronets with an article, even in 2009. I see that you have added some now. And, anyway, where is Sir George Young? I am certain that he is more notable than all the others combined.--The Traditionalist (talk) 12:56, 13 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete for failing WP:LISTN. Nobody considers 6th baronets as a group. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:59, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Except it isn't a list, it is a disambiguation. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:37, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Just because it's got a dab template doesn't make it any less a list. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:47, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I beg to differ a little. Certainly nobody considers 6th Baronets a group, which is a sufficient argument to delete a disambiguation page, but it is not the best idea to you cite the lists policy for it... The disambiguation policy would the same job much better.--The Traditionalist (talk) 12:56, 13 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete - nobody is going to search for someone as "6th baronet." It's like making a disambiguation page for people who are the second in their line ie "Jr." I've done plenty of articles on nobility and peers, and I've never come across a situation where someone was described with no other detail (ie family name), especially for baronetcies.  —Мандичка YO 😜 08:55, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep: I can imagine reference being made to "the 6th baronet" within a history of a family or a text about their house ("the 6th baronet redesigned the gardens..."), and that chunk of text being copied into another source carelessly (even, possibly, as a bad edit to a Wikipedia article) so that the reader is seeing "6th baronet" out of the context in which it was originally used, where it would have been obvious which baronetcy was involved. But, logically, the article creator ought to create similar articles for each of the other numbers too (hmm, interesting thought, how high is "n" in the highest usage of "nth baronet" to date?). I've left a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage where Baronetcy experts are to be found.  Pam  D  09:49, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Answering my own question... The Wardlaw baronets go up to 20th Baronet, followed by "Presumed 21st Baronet" up to "Presumed 23rd Baronet". So perhaps 23 dab pages needed. Might stil be useful. (And no, I've got no idea what a "presumed baronet" is!) Pam  D  09:55, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * If a baronet is mentioned within text about a family, you would know who it was! When is anyone ever referred to simply as "nth baronet" with no other information available? A disambiguation page for all of these are unnecessary/silly. —Мандичка YO 😜 10:06, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, the baronetcy would have been named somewhere in the original text - but if you read what I wrote, I was talking about cases of bad copy-and-pasting or careless writing, where someone thoughtlessly uses the term "6th baronet" because that's what their source said - for example writing that "the 6th Baronet redesigned the garden" in a piece about a historic house, copied from another source, while the article it's copied into doesn't mention the baronets. Pam  D  14:49, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Baronetcy expert here! A “presumed Baronet” is a Baronet whose name does not appear in the “Official Roll of the Baronetage”, another “brilliant” idea of that bloody Liberal (POV3). In other words, in order to be legally considered a Baronet, even if you are the undisputed first-born son, you have to go through a certain deal of bureaucracy and present evidence (birth certificates etc.) to be able to use your title, which is why some people, who have actually succeeded to their titles, have not bothered to undergo the process but, as they are de facto Baronets, are called presumed Baronets. This was done to prevent the assumption of false noble titles, which thrived back then, but, in practice, it just disencourages some people from using their titles.--The Traditionalist (talk) 12:56, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks - it's educational, this editing lark. I knew there'd be an expert around. (And, while we're at it, any idea on the highest value of "n" in "nth Baronet"? Does anyone beat the Wardlaws?) Pam  D  14:49, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * No, I do not think so. If we bring peers in, however, we have the impressive record of the barons Kingsale.--The Traditionalist (talk) 15:05, 13 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete. Completely pointless. There are many 6th Baronets out there. A reference to "the 6th Baronet" could refer to any of those listed plus hundreds more who don't have articles (and probably never will, as only the 1st Baronet is inherently notable for being a baronet). The term "the 6th Baronet" is never likely to be used out of context - if it was than the writer needs shooting for being an idiot! -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:26, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Seconded!--The Traditionalist (talk) 12:56, 13 July 2015 (UTC)


 * You can see several examples of it in Google Books: "by Mary, his wife, daughter of Blair of that ilk, of Sir John, the 6th Baronet, ..." and "on the death of his cousin, sir Banks, the 6th baronet; advanced to the dignity of earl of Liverpool" and "Sir John, the eldest, was the 5th Baronet, and died without issue; whereupon his brother (6th Bart ) Sir Thomas succeeded, and was the 6th Baronet". You wrote: "plus hundreds more who don't have articles". The same for disambiguation of any name, you may look for "John Smith" and find that your John Smith is not listed, yet we still disambiguate them. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 13:11, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I find these passages rather vague. Could you give us a link?--The Traditionalist (talk) 13:18, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * This was not an argument of deletion, it was part of my prologue.--The Traditionalist (talk) 13:19, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I do not believe that anyone would write any of that without furnishing a surname! "by Mary, his wife, daughter of Blair of that ilk, of Sir John, the 6th Baronet, ..." makes no sense whatsoever as even a fragment of a sentence. "on the death of his cousin, sir Banks, the 6th baronet; advanced to the dignity of earl of Liverpool": Presumably Sir Banks shared the same surname as the individual being referred to! ""Sir John, the eldest, was the 5th Baronet, and died without issue; whereupon his brother (6th Bart ) Sir Thomas succeeded, and was the 6th Baronet" sounds very much like the sort of genealogical data where the surname has already been recorded higher up the list. I reiterate, nobody would just write "the nth Baronet" without context, so having a disambiguation page serves no useful purpose. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:53, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Here we are:
 * “by Mary, his wife, daughter of Blair of that ilk, of Sir John, the 6th Baronet” This is from The Genealogy of the Existing British Peerage by Edmund Lodge and it is 10 lines under the obvious heading “Sinclair Baronets”. 1
 * “on the death of his cousin, sir Banks, the 6th baronet; advanced to the dignity of earl of Liverpool” This is from Debrett's Peerage and Baronetage and, as Necrothesp pointed out above, it is obvious that both people had the same surname (It is about Sir Banks Jenkinson, Bt and the 1st Earl of Liverpool, for your information) 2
 * “Sir John, the eldest, was the 5th Baronet, and died without issue; whereupon his brother (6th Bart ) Sir Thomas succeeded, and was the 6th Baronet” This is from The Gentleman's and London Magazine: or Monthly Chronologer and it is on the page opposite of the heading “Gage family”. 3

I do not think that this line of reasoning is sufficient enough for this page to be kept.--The Traditionalist (talk) 17:05, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 14 July 2015 (UTC)


 * 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.