Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baron of Fulwood

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was ambiguous.

The consensus of this discussion was fairly clear that the current office-holder does not meet the recommended criteria for inclusion of biographies. The Camilo Agasim-Pereira is further complicated as it is an autobiography with all the challenges and risks those articles entail. (Note to the subject: We strongly discourage the creation of autobiographies. It is impossible to stay neutral in the discussion.  If you are famous enough to deserve an article in a general purpose encyclopedia like Wikipedia, be patient and let someone else write it.  In the meantime, feel free to create a user account.  We allow quite a bit more latitude in the user space to write about yourself.)

The consensus was also quite clear that Wikipedia is not a genealogical database and that a great deal of these articles constitute genealogical data.

The decision was a closer call on whether a neutral discussion of the Baronies themselves might be encyclopedic. I note that one is explicitly described as being a mere 40 acres. Wikipedia is widely inconsistent about the inclusion standards for places. If kept, this would stand at the small end of the spectrum.

Noting that, the current contents of the two "Baron" articles have only a little content about the respective Baronies. If converted into discussions of the Barony, most of the content would probably be removed and the title would have to be changed.

I am going to call Camilo Agasim-Pereira as a straight delete decision.

I am going to exercise my discretion here and call the other two as "no consensus" decisions for now. If they are not substantially improved in a reasonable amount of time, it may be appropriate to renominate them for deletion. Rossami (talk) 23:36, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Baron of Fulwood, Baron of Dirleton, Camilo Agasim-Pereira
'''Please note - this is a VfD for three separate articles (although all related to the same person, still potentially covers three separate subjects). Please make it clear which articles you think ought to be Deleted, Kept etc.'''

This appears to be someone who just bought two titles (in the Scots Peerage, the lowest rank is Lord and not Baron; a Baron is merely the person who owns a particular patch of land). Lots of stories about the people who previously held the title but the current holder appears not to be notable, and I would also argue that Scots Baronies are not actually notable in themselves. The last named article is a total mess as someone appears to have edited it to criticise the subject. All three appear largely to be autobiographical. David | Talk 21:42, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete and curse those magazine ads where you get to buy the title for Christmas. This particular flavour of Barony doesn't get the protection from deletion of being a Peer, or anything either. -Splash 01:29, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete one cannot "buy" a title, and is not made notable by the attempt. Avalon 04:22, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
 * In fact you can buy a Scottish barony, for about 100,000 pounds. Until recently you did this by buying the associated land under "feudal tenure", but the Scottish Parliament abolished feudal tenure so now you do not even need to buy the land.  But indeed owning this title does not make you part of the peerage, or notable in a Wikipedia sense.  The question for me is whether Camilo Agasim-Pereira is notable in himself.  If he is then his somewhat colourful life needs to be noted, whether he is sensitive about it or not. Scottish Feudal Baronies is another of his articles. The old version was not a mess. --Facethefacts 07:41, 14 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete I mean the Camilo Agasim-Pereira one. However the fact remain the if we like it or not baronies and barons are legal title in the Noblesse of Scotland and were titles created in the peerage of Scotland, late the barons themselves gave-up the right to attend Parliament voluntary due to the burden of doing so.

As recent as 2000 the Scottish Parliament re-affirmed those titles in §63(1) of  the  Abolition  of  Feudal  Tenure  (Scotland)  ACT  2000 provides  that  "Any jurisdiction of, and any conveyancing privilege incidental to, barony shall on the appointed day cease to exist; but nothing in this Act affects the dignity of baron or any other dignity or office (whether or not of feudal origin)", therefore forever enshrined in law the dignity of the baronage of Scotland, the whole issue of sit in Parliament is dead one as neither Scottish Barons or Hereditary Peers can sit in Parliament any longer. Whether or not someone buy a title those title can only be used with a warrant from Lord Lyon’s Court on behalf of the Queen, I check in the Baron of Fulwood’s site he does hold a Warrant for Letter Patent, and also appear from the disposition that his title was not bought but bequeathed to him by the previous baron. --L Morgan 17:34, 14 August 2005 (UTC)


 * (Sole edits of L Morgan are here --Henrygb 00:58, 15 August 2005 (UTC))

Gentleman, I hate to see an argument over something as innocent as the history of our Baronies.

You are all assuming erroneously that I paid for my title that is not so, even if there is nothing wrong in law to do so in Scotland.

Being a Scottish Baron today is about helping your local community, scholarships, charity and the promotion of the well-being of your barony, we certainly have done our fair share of those acts in our communities and in support of many cultural institutions in the UK and overseas. It is true that I have experienced some set backs in my life however I think that the Courts decisions in those matters speaks for themselves, they were fabricated and false allegations.

I do hold a Warrant from the Crown confirming my title and I have not bought my titles. All these comments are so unnecessary, as to the autobiography issue, I believe that there are 7 lines in the articles dealing with me and my family as the present holders of Baronies of Fulwood and Dirleton that have been in existence for over 600 years, hardly an autobiography, the rehearsal of old defamatory statements by Facethefacts in a new and incorrect article is the issue in hand not a historical piece on the Baronies of Fulwood and Dirleton, that certainly has its historical value.

To say the Scottish Baronies are not notable, is an insult to the History of Scotland to say the least. It clearly show a lack of knowledge of Scottish History, by the way not a “province” of a England but a equal partner, with its very unique monarchy, government and judicial system, please bear in mind the of System of the Nobility of Scotland are not English, but very Scottish. The importance of Scottish Baronage is demonstrated in the fact that even The Prince of Wales as Heir to the Scottish Throne hold the Scottish Feudal Title of “ Baron of Renfrew” among his official title. It's true most of us holders of Scottish baron titles are not notable, but the title and the history clearly is so. Here are a few quote that could maybe improve the lack of knowledge of the importance the Scottish Baronies held in the history of Scotland:

1- That the  Baronage  of  Scotland  is  an  'order',  'estate'  (of  the  Scots'  Realm)  and  a  'Rank':   See  Sir Thomas  Innes  of  Learney,  "The  Robes  of  the  Feudal  Baronage  of  Scotland,"  (27th  Oct  1945)  Proceedings  of  the  Society  of  Antiquaries  of  Scotland,  Vol. 79, pp. 111  at  113,   116,  fn. 1, 146, 150

2- Statement in  Lyon  Court  documents  that  minor  barons  are  officially  the  'equivalent  to  the  chiefs  of  Baronial  Houses  on  the  Continent  of  Europe':   See Sir  Thomas  Innes  of  Learney,  "The  Robes  of  the  Feudal  Baronage  of  Scotland,"  (27th  Oct  1945)  Proceedings  of  the  Society  of  Antiquaries  of  Scotland,  Vol. 79, pp. 111  at  p.  143,  fn. 3, 155.    See  Wauchop  of  Niddrie,  Lyon  Register,  Vol  XXXV,  p.  31,  19th  April  1945; Matriculation  of  Chisholm  of  Chisholm,  Lyon  Register  33/12:  30th  March  1944; Matriculation  of  Borthwick  of  Borthwick,  Lyon  Register  35/14;

3- Statement in  Lyon  Court  documents  that minor  barons  constitute  a  'titled  nobility'  and  that  the  estate  of  the  Baronage  are  of  the  ancient  feudal  nobility  of  Scotland:   See    See   26th  February  1943,  Register  of  Genealogies,  Vol  IV,  p  26;   Thomas  Innes  of  Learney,  "The  Robes  of  the  Feudal  Baronage  of  Scotland,"   Proc. of Soc. of Antiquaries  of  Scotland,   (27th  October  1945)  Vol  79,  P.  111  at  p.  143,  fn. 3,  154.   See  Petition  of  Sir  Hugh  Vere  Huntly  Duff  Munro-Lucas-Tooth,  1965  S.L.T.  (Lyon  Ct.)  2  at  p. 13;

4- The Lyon  Court  has  issued  a  official  pronouncement  that  the  feudal  or  minor  Baronage  of  Scotland  constitute  a  ‘titled  nobility’,  as  Sir  Thomas  declares  in  “The  Robes  of  the  Baronage  of  Scotland”,  ibid.,  p.  143  in  fn. 3, as  follows:

“Edinburgh, 26th  February  1943. The Lord  Lyon  King  of  Arms  having  considered  the  foregoing  (in  a  birthbrief,  the  preparation  whereof  was  then  duly  ‘authorised’,  being  the  Signature  for  such  writ ). ‘Further, with  regard  to  the  words  ‘untitled  nobility’  employed  in  certain  recent  birthbrieves  in  relation  to  the  Minor  Baronage  of  Scotland,  Finds  and  Declares  that  the  Minor  Barons  of  Scotland  are,  and  have  been  both  in  this  nobiliary  Court  and  in  the  Court  of  Session  recognised  as  a  “titled  nobility”  and  that  the  estait  of  the  Baronage  (i.e.  Barones  Minores)  are  of  the  ancient  Feudal  Nobility  of  Scotland’   (Reg.  Of  Gen.,  vol.  IV.  P.  26).”   (Emphasis  supplied.) [Hugh Peskett whois a great genealogist and researcher wrote the following article concerning Scottish Baronage http://www.hughpeskett.co.uk/008BARONY/BARONY.HTM --The Baron of Fulwood 18:08, August 14, 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete Scottish baronies and by extension their holders are not notable. --Henrygb 00:58, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
 * My vote here produced a strange response from "the Baron of Fulwood" similar to that above, saying that what I have said "is an insult to the History of Scotland".   I should add both that Wikipedia is not a genealogical site and that Scottish Baronies can be bought sold or otherwise transfered.  So they are still not notable.  Given "the Baron"'s edits to his own article, it is difficult to work out if he is himself notable. --Henrygb 16:18, 15 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep Baron of Dirlton - This is an interesting history of the Barony (and therefore notable to me!) - the holder himself is not the primary subject of the article, and I don't have any problem that the current title holder added or edited the article himself. I don't believe the article is primarily genealogical either. I don't think Wikipedia shouldn't have a POV over whether the title can be bought or sold, either - they are still notable in Scottish history. Note there is a category, too. Stephenb 09:45, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Scots Baronies do not belong in that Category as I read it. They are fundamentally different to Baronies in the English and Irish Peerages because the latter are Peerages whereas the former are not. There is no POV over whether Scots Baronies are capable of being bought and sold: they are so capable, as a matter of fact and not opinion. David | Talk 09:48, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I stand corrected over the category! The POV is not whether they can be bought or sold, but whether Wikipedia should treat that as a reason for exclusion from the encyclopedia. Just because some people don't like the fact that a title can be bought or sold should not mean that that POV should govern whether the title is an entry in Wikipedia - such titles are provably historical and therefore notable and worthy of entry. Stephenb 13:03, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
 * "Historical" means "written down in the past". That is not enough to make something notable.  This was merely a form of land ownership which is no longer associated with land. Should every Manor in England and its holders also be recorded in Wikipedia? --Henrygb 15:22, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
 * OK, well, maybe we should remove all historical articles :-) Flippancy aside (though there is a point in there), these Baronies obviously has notable influence on the establishment of their times and the surrounding communitites.  Yes, I believe notable Manors should be included, too.  If we can include what I regard as trivia (characters in computer games, for instance) I can't see why significant land ownership/influence in history should not be included Stephenb 15:30, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Camilo Agasim-Pereira - not notable Stephenb 09:45, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep (but clean up) Baron of Fulwood, to the same level as the other Barony Stephenb 09:45, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

The user David is failing to notice one thing, every title in the Uk was somehow acquired, in one way or another, only a simple mind would think otherwise, nothing is for free in life. Scottish barony were (or are as per some scholars) peerages.It is a fact, however, that the feudal earls and barons were the original peers of the realm in the proper feudal sense of the word. It is also a fact, as stated above, that feudal barons continued to have the right to sit as part of the nobility in the Scottish Parliament up to the time of the Act of Union. Since they had as much right to sit as part of the nobility in the Scottish Parliament as did 'lords of parliament' they were, at that time, just as much peers as those 'lords of parliament'. Lord Bankton, one of the great institutional writers (i.e. someone who is accepted as authoritative in courts of law), states in his 'Institute of the Laws of Scotland' (II, III, para 83) that 'Baronies and Regalities come next to be considered … This leads me to the distinction of fees Noble and Ignoble … Noble fees, are those which conferred nobility to persons vested in them; these were baronies and regalities; and anciently all nobility, in the modern states proceeded from such fees; thus the title of Baron included Duke, Marquis and Earl, as well as that of Lord. All barons were equally entitled, as lords of parliament, to sit and vote in it'. This makes it quite clear that anyone who had the right to sit in Parliament as a baron was a lord of parliament and therefore, if there was any doubt in the matter, also a peer. In addition, Sir Thomas Innes of Learney refers ('The Robes of the Feudal Baronage of Scotland', P.S.A.S, Vol. LXXIX, p. 144) to the case of Sundry Barons v. Lord Lyon (1672) ('Brown's Supplement', Vol. III, p. 6) where those sundry barons 'successfully maintained, in claiming their supporters, that they were as good Barons after that Act (1587) as before'. On this basis, Scottish feudal barons were 'peers of Scotland' for the purposes of sections 22 and 23 of the Act of Union which made all 'peers of Scotland' into 'peers of Great Britain' (they remained 'peers of Scotland' but became part of a greater peerage of Great Britain). Since Scottish feudal barons became 'peers of Great Britain' in 1707 they have continued to be so ever since and all of them became entitled to sit in the House of Lords under the Peerage Act of 1963 (The Act states that 'The holder of a peerage in the peerage of Scotland shall have the same right to receive writs of summons to attend the House of Lords and to sit and vote in that House as the holder of a peerage in the peerage of the United Kingdom; and the enactments relating to the election of Scottish representative peers shall cease to have effect.') Since their peerages are not 'hereditary' under the terms of the House of Lords Act 1999 but are 'in commercio' (they can be bought and sold), they were not deprived of their right to sit in the House of Lords by that Act. Approached from the other direction the question is simply 'If feudal barons were originally peers of Scotland, exactly when and how did they cease to be peers of Scotland?' The answer is they didn't, certainly not in 1428 or 1587 (because they continued to have the right to attend Parliament as nobles) and certainly not in 1707. He may want to come up with a better argument in law for his point against the historical value of Scottish Baronies, what is cleaner buying a hereditary title legally, or donating a few thousand pounds under the table to the government of the day  and getting one that will only last you the course of your lifetime. If a man can not write the history of his own Barony, I guess Churchill History of the World War should be discarded too, as he was one of the major player in the event.--The Baron of Fulwood 15:08, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * There is so much nonsense in that that paragraph that it is difficult to know where to start. Please find any example of a holder of a Scottish Barony (who was not in one of the other categories) as a recorded member of the British House of Lords from 1963 to 1999.  Even better, turn up yourself now and make enough of a speech to get "Baron of Fulwood" published as a speaker in the House of Lords Hansard.  You cannot because what you say is not true. --Henrygb 15:22, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Henrygb is absolutely correct. Scots Baronies are not Peerages. They are simply the Scots equivalent of the English Lord of the Manor title, with the exception that it seems they do apparently give precedence (below the lowest Baronet). I believe holders of Baronetcies have been found not to be necessarily notable. David | Talk 15:39, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I'd agree with that - I also agree that holders are not notable. But surely the titles themselves are (2 of the 3 articles)? Stephenb 15:46, 16 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Incidentally, Scots barons can sit in Parliament - they're commoners! Just need to get elected... Regarding precedence, Whitaker's doesn't show any for Barons in the Scottish order of precedence - it does have a firmly worded entry that Scottish barons are not peers, and that Lords of Parliament should never be styled Baron, though. Shimgray 04:07, 18 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete the whole thing completely illegible, can' t tell what the author is trying to say--I-2-d2 15:36, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Which articles? Stephenb 15:46, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

David, I can't work out if you just hate Scottish Baron or the Scotland in general, until 9 months ago (November 28, 2000) Scottish Baron had magisterial power and were feudal superior all over Scotland, the power all such and so out of place in the 21st century that the Scottish Parliament so fitted to abolish the Feudalism and Magisterial power of the Barons. Now come you in you with your “learned legal mind” and compare and stated that a Scottish barony are the same as a Lordship of the Manor in England, your sense of History and Law is so appalling that makes one want to laugh at your knowledge and bias. What is you could no acquire one therefore you just hate them all, Freud explain those feeling the question is can you understand his explanation?--The Baron of Fulwood 16:05, August 16, 2005 (UTC)


 * Ho hum. It's best to avoid personal attacks on other Wikipedians and policy is to delete them, but I think it best to leave this one alone and pass over the personal aspect without comment - save to say that I am not one of 'learned in the law'. I nominated the three articles for deletion because I do not think they cover subjects which are appropriate for an encyclopaedia, in that the subjects are not notable. This does not apply to Scottish Feudal Baronies and I would vote keep if anyone nominated that for deletion, but individual Scots Baronies are different. This is not due to a bias against the nobility, but to considerations of what benefits Wikipedia. As a Alec Douglas-Home (14th Earl of Home in the Peerage of Scotland) remarked of Harold Wilson, he was in a sense the 14th Mr Wilson. We don't let people write their family histories and put them on Wikipedia, nor should we allow the collective history of people who happen to have held a particular feudal Scots title: it's simply too coincidental to be put together. If individual holders are notable then write articles about them, and by all means point out that they held the title and passed it to someone else, but the Barony is not in itself significant enough - in my judgment - to warrant an article. David | Talk 10:27, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

David, Thanks for clarifying your position. It was never my intent to write our family history for that purpose we have our website. I Think that what Lord Home was saying was that he was the 14th Mr. Home and not Mr Wilson, however with all due respect to Lord Home, who disclaimed his Title in 23 of October 1963and then was created a life Peer in 1975(as baron Home of Hirsel), he was wrong Mr is a title, like Earl is a title, if however he made that statement between 1963 and 1975 he was correct he was just plain Mr. Douglas-Home and not Mr Home as his name was a double barreled one. I might be wrong but I think that Lord Home actually was born in the Barony of Fulwood. I'm sorry if I offended you. I should not have done so. I apologize once again for my outspoken manner. The whole intent was to publish the History of the Barony not of ourselves. I don't have a problem if you remove my name, however that would be a mutilation of the history of the barony. Surely once I'm gone the new Baron, my son could add my name to the history, among the only good things about a heriditary title is it's immortality. --The Baron of Fulwood 00:03, August 18, 2005 (UTC)


 * Famous quote from the '64 election - Wilson kept remarking that the 14th Earl of Home could hardly be a man of the people (he had disclaimed then, but it's not like people had forgotten where he was a year before), and Douglas-Home remarked "As far as the 14th Earl is concerned, I suppose that Mr. Wilson, when you come to think of it, is the 14th Mr. Wilson". Not a desperately meaningful statement, but a nice rejoinder. Shimgray 04:07, 18 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Oh, and a vote - delete all three. Individual Scots baronies nonnotable (...says the Laird of A Small Patch Of Dirt Near The A720, I suppose), and looking at the personal article it looks doomed to either be a) a one-sided puff piece or b) a godawful uninformative mess, neither of which are usefully encylopedic. Shimgray 05:11, 18 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete all three for the reasons set forth by others. &mdash; Trilobite (Talk) 14:40, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete vanity/spam. Morwen - Talk 14:45, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. The baronies, seems to be a notable part of Scotish history. Paul August &#9742; 23:29, August 23, 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.