Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robinson baronets of Newby (1660)


 * 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 merge to Metcalfe Robinson. Per Agricolae. Black Kite (talk) 23:48, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Robinson baronets of Newby (1660)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

I redirected this to Metcalfe Robinson, the first and only person ever to have this minor title, but this was objected against by the article creator, User:Charles Matthews, for reasons they can best explain. Both the article at AfD and the target are very short, and 99% of the info in the baronets article was already present in the target anyway. There seems to be no good argument to have two separate articles here, and as the baronetcy is an aspect of the person (and not the other way around), redirecting the title to the person is the logical solution. Fram (talk) 12:18, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 12:18, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 12:18, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 12:18, 21 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep: The situation with baronets and baronetcies is, as far as I can see, all baronetcies are notable (they occur in many reference works), while not all baronets are notable. The general argument seems to be, in case the baronetcy has only one holder, that we can either have an article about the person (when notable), or the title: but not both.
 * While that argument would make my life easier (I'm starting to apply the set index principle to aggregated baronet articles, and there would be less work), I'm suspicious of it from the encyclopedia's point of view. At list of baronetcies, there is a comment, about some lists, "only the first is complete; the other five do not at the moment list all extinct baronetcies". Plenty of people work in this area, which has been popular here from early on. Yet basic listings are not there. Fram's argument "the baronetcy is an aspect of the person" goes against what is needed.
 * If people think this is a straightforward debate, they could have a look at Template:Infobox hereditary title in its full glory. The implicit assertion is the article could not be "fixed by normal editing" under WP:CONRED. Fram has rejected the idea of a merge discussion, which is how I assumed this matter would be dealt with. Charles Matthews (talk) 12:51, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * How would having this as a redirect instead of a separate article make any list either complete or incomplete? All baronetcies are listed in the list, but some point to a separate article, some to a redirect, some perhaps to sections of a larger article... Keeping an article instead of a redirect because otherwise some list is not complete is not a convincing argument at all. I fail to see how redirecting this makes the encyclopedia any worse, or has a negative impact on either an editor or a reader. On the contrary, it avoids unnecessary duplication. A merge discussion makes little sense without anything that needs merging. (By the way, that List of baronetcies has had 5 edits since 2013, when the text about the completeness of lists was already there; whether it is even still correct is not clear, but how it would ever steer a discussion like this is hard to imagine). Fram (talk) 13:06, 21 October 2021 (UTC)


 * minimal Merge with the transfer of three items - 1) the name (and blue-link) of the nephew-successor; 2) the use of Cokayne as a source for information on the baronetcy (Cokayne is a superior source to Burke and should replace Burke wherever possible - minus the 'access-date' field, which is inappropriate for a published book); and 3) the Baronet infobox with the coat of arms and blazon to replace the image of the same coat of arms and blazon. The idea that we need to maintain duplicate articles just so that we will have an entry so named for some list of extinct baronetcies is letting the tail wag the dog. Agricolae (talk) 14:44, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * When it comes to data handling, the data can be the horse rather than the cart. You're right about Cokayne, and his Complete Baronetage is on my very short list of things to get into Wikisource. Charles Matthews (talk) 16:51, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * 'Prettier lists' is not a good rationale for having duplicate pages, whatever animal analogy you prefer. Agricolae (talk) 18:43, 21 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Merge per Agricolae. Robinson is notable and, as the sole holder of a defunct and obscure title, there is little point in keeping the baronetcy as a separate article because of inevitable duplication. We need to ensure, as Agricolae has itemised, that the essential points in the baronetcy piece are transferred to Robinson. We certainly need a merge, thoroughly done, and not a simple redirect. No Great Shaker (talk) 06:23, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Merge to Marquesses of Rippon. The normal solution for a title that died with its first holder is to redirect the title article to the one holder (as nom).  In this case it is not the best solution as his nephew was also 1st baronet, which suggests a disambiguation page, but a page covering both creations would be better still.  However the target page (1690 baronets is one that should be redirected to my target, being the higher title held by subsequent baronets.  This is not an inappropriate solution as the family estates of the 1660 baronet were left to his nephew the 1690 1st baronet.  We frequently do this where the holders of successive or rival titles were wholly unrelated, e.g. Dukes of York, Marquesses of Bristol.  I thus see no objection here.  Peterkingiron (talk) 19:20, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I would accept this argument had the proposed target been a single page dedicated to a generic Robertson of Newby baronetages that would cover both creations, but that is not what the proposed target is. There is no continuity between the 1660 creation and the Marqueses so a merge between the two seems artificial. (Even if one inherited the land of the other, we don't generally merge 'title' pages based solely on successive property ownership, only successive title ownership.) Agricolae (talk) 19:49, 23 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment. Charles Matthews has split the former article Robinson baronets into separate articles for each baronetcy with that name. But that is not usually how we handle articles on baronetcies. See Category:Baronetcies in the Baronetage of England and Category:Baronetcies in the Baronetage of the United Kingdom. Usually we group all baronetcies of a single name together. Since this was apparently done without discussion, the former article should be restored. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:31, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * It seems some of our listmakers want individual entries for each grant. Looks like a broader discussion on how to handle synonymous baronetages is in order, but that is for another venue. At least two of the three changes I thought should be preformed in a 'minimal merge' are necessary improvements to Metcalfe Robinson anyhow: the heir should be explicitly named and linked, and Cokayne should be used instead of Burke wherever possible, and it wouldn't hurt to substitute the Baronetage infobox too. Thus, I don't see that restoration of this collective title page and 'minimal merge' of the current page to Metcalfe Robinson need be viewed as mutually exclusive (or to put it another way, we don't really have to resolve the larger question of synonymous Baronetages to close this AfD because the same content under discussion should be placed on the target page either way). Agricolae (talk) 14:34, 27 October 2021 (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.