Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dickson baronets


 * 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 no consensus. Stifle (talk) 16:35, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Dickson baronets

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Unreferenced since 2006. Fails WP:GNG/WP:LISTN, there is no significant coverage at all for the topic of baronetcies created for people with the surname "Dickson". Not a suitable disambiguation page either as it does not actually link to meaningful other topics. FOARP (talk) 13:47, 11 January 2022 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   22:28, 18 January 2022 (UTC) Relisting comment: The "all baronetcies are notable" and "it's a useful list" arguments appear to be rather weak in terms of guidelines; relisting for more input. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   08:28, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:01, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:01, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nova Scotia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:01, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment should it not be classified as a WP:Set index article? Thincat (talk) 08:59, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. Part of a huge series on baronetcies per Thincat. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:04, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Consistency is important and it makes no sense to have a gap in the series of articles on baronetcies. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:40, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment - This neither disambiguates notable topics, nor is a notable list in itself. No source is provided above to substantiate notability. A set list has the same "criteria for creating, adding to, or deleting" as a stand-alone list per WP:SIA, which means it has to pass WP:LISTN, meaning that multiple instances of significant coverage in reliable sources are required. In this case there is not even one. Not every list of baronets by surname deserves an article. FOARP (talk) 16:50, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete, arguments in nomination are compelling, keep argument makes little sense (we don't keep articles just because they are part of a huge series, they have to be judged on their own merits). Fram (talk) 09:26, 13 January 2022 (UTC): Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep.An article on specific 400 year old baronetcies is notable and without doubt useful for anyone using Wikipedia to try to research the titles. Deathlibrarian (talk) 05:40, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * A completely unreferenced article on baronetcies. See also WP:ITSNOTABLE and WP:ITSUSEFUL FOARP (talk) 08:27, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep LISTN is only one criterion at Set index articles, and the guideline states "one or more" of the criteria, not all. "Short, complete list" would be achievable for these; I moved a reference from a linked article, but to make it complete, part of the list would have to be copied from Baron Islington for which there is currently no reference. A865 (talk) 01:15, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * "Short, complete list" requires that "Its inclusion of items is supported by reliable source s ", a single source does not achieve this. Copying references that refer only to one item on the list (and not to the group covered) doesn't get this over the line. FOARP (talk) 19:29, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * More sources have been added, so this non-issue has been addressed. The "group covered" requirement is for a separate criterion ("Notable lists"). And reliable sources doesn't only mean more than one. A865 (talk) 15:47, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep This article connects the two creations of the baronetcy, which each have an associated wiki page: (1), (2). It seems we would lose that link if this page is deleted. Also, it's not completely unreferenced as the nominator claims: (3). Ficaia (talk) 11:47, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep It's part of large collection of wikipedia pages about baronetcies. And it should be treated as such. All baronetcies were/are discribed in many books. GorgonaJS (talk) 02:11, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I added links GorgonaJS (talk) 02:21, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Comment - The sources provided are alphabetical listings of individual baronetcies. There is no indication that there is anything notable this particular grouping of baronetcies, which are completely unrelated other than having the same surname. We already have an article on the surname Dickson including a listing of articles about people with that surname, and everyone listed in that article is included in this one. FOARP (talk) 13:55, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * It sounds like you want to get rid of the hundreds of similar articles on baronetcies rather than just this one. Many of them are grouped by surname. For consistency reasons there is no earthly advantage in getting rid of a single article in a large series. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:28, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Mostly I'm working on getting the last few articles unref'd from 2006 out of the way. That Wikipedia has tens of thousands of problematic articles is no news to anyone, This is particularly the case for articles created mostly in 2006 or so. My hope, however, is that the other "*SURNAME* Baronetcies" articles are not in as bad a state as this one, and do not simply duplicate material already covered under the surname in question. FOARP (talk) 17:07, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I would not hold out hope on this. Many of them are still sourced with a 2004 template for Leigh Rayment's web directory of baronetages -- something that would be regarded as a clear SPS now, especially considering Rayment admitted to adding incorrect information to his site as "copyright traps" for Wikipedia. JoelleJay (talk) 21:26, 26 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete. This "list" doesn't provide information that isn't already covered elsewhere, and the sources do not support linking them (OR). Citations to broad genealogical directories where a baronetcy is listed do not demonstrate notability, and satisfying some completionist fantasy of having each and every peerage and baronetage as a standalone article is not a valid reason to keep. JoelleJay (talk) 21:23, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and JJ. In particular, the keep arguments arguing it's useful, inherently notable, part of a set, etc., are all unavailing (and all WP:ATA). Having an article on "Dickson baronets" based on sources about barons named "Dickson" is WP:SYNTH unless there are sources about "Dickson baronets" as a group. That's why WP:N requires WP:GNG coverage of the topic. I see no GNG coverage of the topic "Dickson baronets". Levivich 22:18, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment From WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage: Articles on baronetcies should be sorted by surname, i.e. all baronetcies held by people with a particular surname should share an article, regardless of whether they are actually related. The article should be at "Surname baronets" For more information about the project and structure of articles on baronetcies, please, read WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage . GorgonaJS (talk) 23:58, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * This methodology does not seem to be sourced in reliable sources, and instead seems to be something that the old Wikipedia:WikiProject Baronetcies, who were working seemingly entirely off a Geocities-style source (Rayment), invented for itself. For example the official roll of British baronetcies does not group different baronetcies by surname but instead lists them alphabetically as SURNAME of PLACE (see here) in a continuous list. Even when sources, as part of an alphabetical ordering, say SURNAME and then list baronetcies with that surname, this is not saying that SURNAME baronetcies is actually a notable group - they are related solely by having the same surname and we already have list-articles listing subjects under a surname. Whether or not all such lists should be deleted is a subject for further discussion, but in the case of Dickson the sourcing just isn't there. FOARP (talk) 08:43, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Items in set index articles are only required to be of a specific type; there is no requirement for them to have been written about as a group. The surname lists have different selection criteria. Discussion on whether this structure is retained or separate pages are made for each baronetcy can continue on the Wikiproject page. A865 (talk) 00:01, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * But what are the actual items here? They are baronetcies. And what are the actual names of the baronetcies? They are SURNAME of LOCATION - the baronetcies themselves do not actually have the same name, they merely have the same surname but different locations.
 * This is without even dipping into the fact that there are actually only two items in this list ("The Dickson baronetcy of Sornbeg in Ayrshire" and "The Dickson baronetcy of Hardingham Hall in Norfolk"), neither of which we have an article about, so what is this indexing? The people who had these titles who were notable are already listed at the article for the surname. FOARP (talk) 08:59, 28 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment Keep: to pick up from Thincat's comment at the beginning of this discussion, WP:SIA specifically allows "short complete lists":
 * "Short, complete lists of every item that is verifiably a member of the group. These should only be created if a complete list is reasonably short (less than 32K) and could be useful (e.g., for navigation) or interesting to readers. The inclusion of items must be supported by reliable sources. For example, Listed buildings in Rivington. If reliable sources indicate that a complete list would include the names of ten notable businesses and two non-notable businesses, then you are not required to omit the two non-notable businesses. However, if a complete list would include hundreds or thousands of entries, then you should use the notability standard to provide focus to the list." This is a list of 8 so the non-notable baronets can be included, and yes, it could indeed be useful for navigation as stipulated.
 * WP:SIA also gives as an (hypothetical) example of a valid set index article "List of earthquakes named X", which is paralleled by "List of baronets surnamed Dickson".
 * As for sources, to quote WP:SIA again (plus my bolding):
 * "10. 	The introduction to a list that contains every member of the group should identify the source(s) for the complete list, which may be online databases, gazetteers, etc. Results of a general web search are not adequate.
 * 11. 	List items do not require citations if they only give information provided by the source(s) cited in the introduction to the list. If an item gives more information, that should be backed up by citations."
 * (a) book sources are acceptable; (b) unless it is being disputed that the standard baronetcies / reference works (Debrett's, Burke's etc) are not reliable sources, the sourcing is there. It's just that no-one has troubled to add it to the article. Many apologies to GorgonaJS, who has done exactly that. Ingratis (talk) 06:10, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I've added the remaining names. Ingratis (talk) 06:53, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * This is not a list of baronets called Dickson. This is a list of baronetcies granted to people named Dickson . As you may note, some of the people in the list did not even have the specific surname "Dickson", but instead a double-barrelled name, as they inherited the title. This is closer to a list of people killed in earthquakes with a specific name. It is a cross-categorisation similar to the lists of people in unit X that had received award Y that we used to have (see, e.g., Articles for deletion/List of Knight's Cross recipients 6th SS Gebirgs Division Nord). Moreover, all of the notable people are already listed at the article for the surname Dickson, so what purpose does this list serve? FOARP (talk) 08:45, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The page is "Dickson baronets", not "Dickson baronetcies", and there is no complete list at Dickson (surname). There are links to some, but only those with articles, and they are not listed together or in a way that specifies which baronetcy, or even on the same page. It is useful to have this information linked together. A865 (talk) 23:32, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * If you look at other "Foo baronets" pages it's clear that they are intended as set indexes of baronets of the same surname, even if not tagged as such (perhaps a job for the appropriate project, if it still operates). The problem with this article, as you correctly point out, was that it had not been properly developed, but had remained as (in effect) a two-item dab page, and as such was indeed fit for deletion. I don't understand the distinction you are trying to make above: the 8 baronets now listed were all surnamed Dickson, including the last one, although he did indeed change his name later in life to Dickson-Poynder, but there were no further D-P baronets. There is no cross-categorisation of the type you mention. It is not accurate that "all the notable people" are on the Dickson surname list(s), although there is no reason why they should not be, but please refer to the quotation above from WP:SIA on short complete lists which expressly states that a complete list including non-notable entries is OK provided it is not too long, and "if it could be useful (e.g., for navigation) or interesting". The former state of the article was pretty useless, but as reworked I think it stands - WP:ATD. Ingratis (talk) 03:30, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Literally the first line of this article: “There have been two baronetcies for people with the surname Dickson”. FOARP (talk) 06:42, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Really? all this for that? Ingratis (talk) 07:56, 29 January 2022 (UTC) Fixed. Ingratis (talk) 07:59, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * ....And now it is a duplication of information at Dickson (surname). FOARP (talk) 12:20, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * - That is not true, as has been pointed out now more than once. To repeat, this is a set index page, so includes all baronets called Dickson, whether or not independently notable; the Dickson (surname) page can only include those who are notable. It doesn't sound as though you've even troubled to look at it. Ingratis (talk) 18:17, 29 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete. No evidence of notability for the combination of Dickson baronetcies. If we're writing articles on baronetcies, each individual one would be better for articles rather than two that just happen to share the same name. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  03:40, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Please look at the article as it now is, rather than as it was when nominated. Ingratis (talk) 14:17, 30 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment Here's an example of a similar article: (1). I think Ingratis makes a good argument for keeping such articles Ficaia (talk) 13:36, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I sincerely hope that a two-item list supported only by one-line mentions in the London Gazette is not emblematic of this type of article. FOARP (talk) 08:27, 31 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment - Despite the improvements made in the article, I think the WP:SYNTH argument against this article is very strong: the title gives the impression that a "Dickson baronet" is idiomatic, and while the statement made in the first sentence is true, it does not unambiguously defeat this misapprehension. I take to be right in considering this article to be a sort of list: for those, we insist  that we have SIGCOV of the class the list enumerates. The keep arguments that invoke WP:SETINDEX actually bolster Levivich's argument, since that guideline explicitly describes these as a special case of list articles and cites LISTN as the appropriate notability guideline. That said, both baronetcies docment holders that we have articles on: would it make sense to split this article into two lists, one for each baronetcy? Each, I take it, is documented in the four peerages cited in the article and so should pass our notability criterion for lists. &mdash; Charles Stewart (talk) 23:05, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:CSC describes how precisely this type of list ("short complete list") is permitted by WP:LISTN. Both WP:CSC and WP:SIA distinguish between "short complete lists" and "notable lists", which is what you are apparently thinking of. Ingratis (talk) 16:32, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Genuinely arbitrary lists are subject to WP:INDISCRIMINATE, a policy that applies over and above the notability guidelines: if you choose ten Wikipedia articles at random and create a small-set list from them, your appeal to CSC at AfD will be viewed dimly even though all members are bluelinked. The SYNTH objection is a strong argument against keeping the article in its current form. &mdash; Charles Stewart (talk) 17:19, 1 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete current article per SYNTH and the absence of any good ATD target for the content. Permit recreation of articles on either or both of the two individual baronetcies using REFUND. &mdash; Charles Stewart (talk) 17:19, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment There seem to be at least several list articles like this one. For example: (1). Surely it would be inelegant to split them all into two or more new articles. Ficaia (talk) 23:15, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I think our criteria for elegance diverge. Here mine is functional: what is more maintainable and what is more friendly to the reader? Here, the SYNTH issue is to my eye an ugly sore, with the potential to confuse both general reader and casual editor. Two articles have no cost to the reader; cf. WP:NOTPAPER, and the multiplication of burden in watching the articles is slight. &mdash; Charles Stewart (talk) 00:17, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I've struck out my !vote since Ficaia has put together a reasonable realisation of the idea of two articles, strengthening the case for an ATD outcome to this AfD. &mdash; Charles Stewart (talk) 02:36, 2 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Here's another example of the same type of article (1) Ficaia (talk) 11:03, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment - In a certain sense, the existence of similar articles is a distraction at AfD, unless we have also reached a useful understanding of how to deal with them. In my opinion, in this AfD we're best off figuring out what the best course of action is with any one of them, then once this AfD is closed we can deal with the others. This isn't meant to discourage others from looking for other examples and thinking about how to deal with the whole class, but I think this discussion would best take place elsewhere, e.g., WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage, and just be linked to from here. &mdash; Charles Stewart (talk) 11:44, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment The problem in my view is that there are a bunch of similar X Baronets articles: (2), (3), (4), etc. Should we split them all into articles on each of the baronetcies covered? Deleting them all would be destructive in my view, and I think Ingratis argued well that short index lists have a place on wikipedia. I think we should decide what we want to do with the category as a whole before we make any changes to this particular article. We can either (1) delete them all, (2) split them all, or (3) leave them as be. Ficaia (talk) 13:27, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * This is a thing that happens often at AfDs: people think there are obviously similar cases, try to deal with them together, but then an already complex AfD becomes derailed because the initially apparent similarity evaporates on closer inspection. The apparent efficiency of dealing with together turns out to be a very costly false economy. For what it's worth, I don't think leaving them be is going to be something I can support, but it might be the case that it isn't the best course of action to treat them all the same. I don't want to argue about the other cases here any more. &mdash; Charles Stewart (talk) 13:45, 2 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Complex merge to newly created articles on individual baronetcies. The current content of the article is adequately sourced and in principle fit for small-set lists, but its present title and aggregation is not acceptable as I have argued in my comments above. To retain history, we need to use Splitting. &mdash; Charles Stewart (talk) 14:08, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * There are literally dozens of these kinds of articles though: (1), (2). If we just split this article and ignore the others we'll be making two outlier articles in a sea of X baronets-type articles. Ficaia (talk) 14:53, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Per WP:WHATABOUT, this is no objection to my !vote. &mdash; Charles Stewart (talk) 15:52, 2 February 2022 (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.