Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baron of Cartsburn


 * 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   keep. NW ( Talk ) 02:41, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Baron of Cartsburn
Please note: Page has been moved to Barony of Cartsburn in light of comments received. Editor8888  talk   20:41, 30 August 2009 (UTC)


 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Scottish barons (not to be confused with Scottish lords) are merely owners of a particular stretch of land. They neither belong to the ranks of nobility nor had politicial power (seats in the House of Lords). In contrast to peerages, Scottish baronies can be sold and are not bound to hereditary succession. While I don't think that the articles in question are candidates for speedy deletions, I nevertheless consider them extremly dubious and can't see any indication of notability. It might be perhaps helpful to read previous AfD's of another baronies some years ago (Votes_for_deletion/Baron_of_Fulwood, Articles for deletion/Baron of Dirleton).

I am also nominating the following related articles :

Phoe  talk   00:40, 30 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The article concerned, Baron of Cartsburn, connects via the link 'Baronage of Scotland' to a clear reference to the status of these baronies, so there is no doubt of what is being referred to.

Phoe makes a number of statements above that are not clear.

Phoe asserts that the articles are "extremely dubious". Nothing in Phoe's post above gives any indication why this is so. All facts referred to in the articles are independently verifiable via other sources. Yes, there are further sources which I am working on, however these will be added when I have time. We have to start the articles somewhere! I do not see why Phoe should have the right to deny other researchers access to this information in the meantime. At the very least, retention of a single web page on the dignity of Baron of Cartsburn is warranted if not single entries on its particular holders. Yet, for example, Historic Scotland and the Burns Encyclopedia, among other sources, feel the individuals are notable enough to be worthy of mention, so why should we not note them in Wikipedia? I think you should allow the articles to develop. There are many other sources to incorporate. Furthermore, there is connected content in Wikipedia. For example, notable buildings have been owned by the Barons of Cartsburn. Lauriston Castle in Edinburgh and Ballumbie Castle in Angus are examples.

It is not right to say "They neither belong to the ranks of nobility nor had politicial power (seats in the House of Lords)" (Phoe) without clarification. They (feudal barons) sat in the ancient Scottish Parliament as a part of the nobility. When this was modified, they sat as an Estate (the Baronage) in their own right. The last amendments left them not being compelled to attend, but their rights to a seat in parliament were never formally removed. To say they never had political power was incorrect. Also, political power does not only manifest itself as a seat in the House of Lords. Barons such as those of Cartsburn had a legal jurisdiction, which is another form of political power. They could try civil and criminal matters on their estates. Barons of Cartsburn have supplied museums with artefacts from this period in social history, such as thumkins, which were used as a form of restraint. Such barons have always constituted part of the minor nobility, but not the peerage.

It is incorrect to say that feudal barons are "merely owners of a particular stretch of land" (Phoe). They actually own a dignity that is recognised by the Crown. See the website of the Lord Lyon: http://www.lyon-court.com/lordlyon/536.html. They have particular forms of address, as is acknowledged by Debrett's: http://www.debretts.com/forms-of-address/titles/scottish--and-irish-titles/scottish-feudal-baronies.aspx.

While we might not like the fact that "Scottish baronies can be sold and are not bound to hereditary succession" (Phoe), this affects neither their legitimacy nor their place in history. It is certainly not a reason for them to be written out of the history books, or encylopedias. Editor8888  talk   09:14, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions.  -- Cyber cobra  (talk) 08:23, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  -- Cyber cobra  (talk) 08:23, 30 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I have looked at the debates on the article on the Baron of Dirleton. This seems to be a different instance, as that was an article serving a self-publicity role and that made dubious claims about the barony being a peerage.  The Baron of Cartsburn article does not now name the present incumbent and accurately portrays the status of the dignity.

The Barons of Cartsburn are well documented in the historical record and there are even publications focusing on the barony. This seems to attest to notability. The articles are very much in a stage of infancy and I would like to be given a chance to expand on these history articles before they are considered for deletion. For example, the grandfather of James Watt, the famous inventor, was Bailie of the Barony, and George Crawfurd, the celebrated writer of the Peerage of Scotland was a member of the family. Editor8888  talk   10:11, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per creators compelling argument. Hawkspur (Falcon8765) 16:38, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment -- As an Englishman I am not familiar with the precise nature of Scottish baronies. My understanding is that it is something like the lordship of a manor in England.  The baron is not a lord of Parliament (which is why we have articles on peerages).  I would be happier with this article being renamed and restructured into one on the barony, rather than the barons who owned it.  The articles on individual barons should be merged back to the "baron" (or "barony") article, unless any are notable for other reasons.   Notability is not heritable, so that the indirect association with James Watt (which has just been added to that article, and ought tom be reverted) and that to George Crawfurd do not save it.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:46, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * (ec) Keep the article on the Barony, delete/merge the articles on the holders. This is of historical interest no matter what one's opinion is of the office or the holders.  However, the individual holders of a minor title need to establish notability in their own right before an article is justified and this has not been done.  We unfortunately do not have a WP:ARISTOCRACY guideline but WP:POLITICIAN gives automatic notability to first-level sub-national office holders, the rest are judged on their individual merits.  On the other hand we have an article for Broxbourne (borough) (amongst many others) which is third-level sub-national political entity.  I would not, however, expect to find articles on individual Broxbourne councillors unless there was something else that made them notable.  I am applying the same principle here, the political unit is notable, the members are not (necessarily).  One more point, really Editor8888, James Watt does not make your article notable.  While an interesting factoid, notability is not inherited, you certainly cannot inherit it from your employees.  Sp in ni  ng  Spark  17:00, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Thank you for your very useful advice above.  I think these suggestions are the right way forward.  Not realising where the individuals would lie in terms of notability, it seems right that that I delete/merge their entries, but keep the main article.  It also seems much more sensible to focus on the barony as an administrative unit rather than on its personalities, so a rename and restructure also seems appropriate.  This is particularly fitting considering its historical importance as a burgh of barony and a port for trade with the Americas (Cartsburn's harbour is part of Greenock's shipping port and this barony's Royal charter established the original harbour rights). Thanks once again. What category would a Scottish baronial administrative unit come under? I have renamed the article, but will need a few days to rewrite and restructure it, as I am very busy right now.  Editor8888   talk   20:27, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep The article is notable, and is referenced elsewhere in Wikipedia, as well as in sources that deal with nobility and honorific titles in the United Kingdom (see Burke's Peerage). Additionally, a 2008 decision by the Lord Lyon allows that the ownership of a Scottish baronial dignity will bring the new baron/ess within the heraldic jurisdiction of the Lord Lyon; thus the acquisition of a Scottish baronial dignity will enable the holder to petition Lord Lyon for a coat of arms  QueenofBattle (talk) 18:00, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I have since found the 'Burgh' category, which applies in this case.  Thanks for all advice.  Editor8888   talk   20:33, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Editor8888 (talk) 23:50, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I have listed this article for rescue, as I do not believe the subject matter to be unnotable.  If anyone rescuing can point out any essential amendments or additions for the retention of this article, I would be most grateful.  I note other feudal Baronies are listed, so feudal Baronies in general have been held to be notable, see for example Barony of Ladyland and Barony of Halton. I do intend to expand on the article, but I cannot do so if it is deleted! Editor8888   talk   00:50, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It looks like you're well on the way to collaborative and productive discussion here. I don't know that rescue that is going to make much of a difference, but I'm sure many of us who participate are glad to see a substantive, policy-based discussion going on.  Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 20:26, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep well referenced, 16 books mention the subject I am deeply troubled that the nominator put these articles up for deletion, in one case 17 minutes after an article was created, with absolutly no attempt at WP:PRESERVE or WP:BEFORE. This to a brand new edior. Ikip (talk) 21:43, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * closing administrator please note this article has gone through signifigant improvements since it was first nominated for deletion. Ikip (talk) 21:45, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment The main book on the topic has not been digitally scanned, so does not come up in the Book search, but it is noted here. The Barons of Cartsburn for whom I was creating individual articles, the Crawfurds of Cartsburn, are mentioned in 142 books. I had thought this would constitute notability and am surprised that there was no attempt at WP:PRESERVE or WP:BEFORE before nominating the articles for deletion. Editor8888 (talk) 23:39, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I have added relevant commentary from the Memoirs of the Chief of Clan Cameron to the article, together with the appropriate references. Editor8888 (talk) 13:22, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep  - good article, meets are note noteability requirements following following improvements Editor8888. FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:04, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I have now integrated the content from the pages Thomas Crawfurd of Cartsburn, 1st Baron of Cartsburn, Thomas Crawfurd of Cartsburn, 4th Baron of Cartsburn and Thomas Macknight Crawfurd of Cartsburn and Lauriston Castle, 8th Baron of Cartsburn into the main article Barony of Cartsburn, so that those individuals' pages can be deleted and so that the general Barony of Cartsburn page can be retained. Editor8888 (talk) 04:58, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * A redirect is better #REDIRECTARTICLE NAME MOVING TOO #R Button in the middle above the writing box. Ikip (talk) 06:22, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Following above advice, the pages on the individuals are now set as redirects to the main page for retention. Editor8888 (talk) 08:33, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * An image of the House of Cartsburn has been added to the article. Editor8888 (talk) 08:33, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Any problems that the article(s) may have had have now been resolved. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 11:44, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per AdamBMorgan. Ben   Mac  Dui  19:14, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Mentioned in enough books, and also having valid references in the article.  D r e a m Focus  20:50, 4 September 2009 (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.