Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sir John Thomas, 1st 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 keep due to further elaboration of the relationship awarded baronetcies have with notability. (non-admin closure) Vaticidalprophet (talk) 01:17, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Sir John Thomas, 1st Baronet

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Baronets are not presumed notable. WP:NOTGENEALOGY applies. Mccapra (talk) 23:55, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 23:55, 10 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep or Merge High Sheriff of Glamorgan seems to be a notable role - most of the list from that period have articles. Could do with expansion certainly. Johnbod (talk) 04:56, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep having a knighthood would pass WP:ANYBIO.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 10:20, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * He was not awarded a knighthood, but inherited a baronetcy. Both allow a man to use the title "Sir", but they are very different things. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:15, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Ahh, right, didn't know that. Thanks for the clarification, Mr. Bridger!  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 09:27, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Baronets are above knights in the order of precedence, and "1st Baronet" means he didn't just inherit the title. Peter James (talk) 18:19, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oops, sorry, I didn't take notice of the "1st" and got the names confused in the article. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:41, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * No, it seems he did inherit the title, so why he is called 1st Baronet is unclear to me! Johnbod (talk) 19:07, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * There were other Thomas baronets before and after, and at the same time, but the title was not inherited from them, it's just that baronetcies, unlike any other topic in Wikipedia, are combined in one article even if the only thing they have in common is the name. Peter James (talk) 22:45, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Thomas baronets. There's a long-standing consensus (hashed out over a decade ago, IIRC) that being a baronet does not confer a presumption of notability. (By contrast, pre-1999 peers generally due, as they enjoyed seats in a national legislature). I don't believe we've ever hashed out a consensus on high sheriffs, but I tend to lean the same way there. After the English Restoration, it was an essentially ceremonial office, conferring prestige on the landholding gentry but also considerable expense in entertaining judges of assize and providing them with a revenue. A great many individuals were appointed (typically 1 per year per county in EN/GB/UK). I've put quite a bit of time into referencing and linking lists of high sheriffs, and for this period, it looks like about 10-25% are bluelinks or plausible redlinks. Abdy baronets may give some idea of how to merge this without loss of useful information. Choess (talk) 03:49, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not averse to a good merege - amended above. Johnbod (talk) 19:10, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree Mccapra (talk) 21:06, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * but people with a lower or higher ranked title would be notable because of that title? Peter James (talk) 22:45, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Higher yes probably, lower, no. Mccapra (talk) 23:54, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * So, you don't think people awarded knighthoods, a lower title, are notable? Both a ridiculous comment and flying against (a) WP:ANYBIO #1, and (b) consensus in many former AfDs that people awarded CBEs and above are notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:35, 13 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep. Baronets who have inherited their titles are not inherently notable, but the 1st Baronet clearly is, since he was awarded that title for his own achievements. We have always held that a CBE or above is notable per WP:ANYBIO #1, and a baronetcy is way above that level. Sorry, but this is a daft nomination that shows a lack of understanding of the honours system. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:29, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment AFAIK there is a consensus that baronets are not presumed notable. In addition many first baronets simply bought their title, which is what the rank was created for (James 1 sold the title so he could avoid the need to ask parliament for money). It may or may not relate to any achievement. Mccapra (talk) 14:45, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Not our place to decide whether it does or not. The fact is that it clearly meets WP:ANYBIO #1 if it was awarded rather than inherited. As has already been pointed out, the consensus is that baronets are not inherently notable if they inherited their titles. There is a very clear consensus that recipients of honours above CBE are notable per WP:ANYBIO #1, and baronets are three levels above that. You seem to be confusing inherited baronetcies with the original recipients. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:53, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Orders,_decorations,_and_medals_of_the_United_Kingdom has more info, and is an interesting read in itself.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 18:03, 13 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Weak keep - as the first baronet of that line, he's probably notable, since it was either secured due to patronage (a practice of William III of England rather than sale and purchase as his great-grandfather had done) or awarded as an honour. Bearian (talk) 23:18, 13 January 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.