Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sir Matthew Brown, 4th Baronet of London (2nd nomination)


 * 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 delete. W.marsh 00:26, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Sir Matthew Brown, 4th Baronet of London


Reason as in previous discussion (Articles for deletion/Sir Matthew Brown, 4th Baronet of London. Complete hoax, and the actual Matthew Brown is a minor fraudster who is certainly not worthy of an article.--Berks105 21:39, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Oops, 6 independent sources cited. Try again. -Amarkov babble 21:43, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Read the sources. Most only mention him very briefly, and nothing says he's a baronet. Read previous discussion. This is a complete hoax. --Berks105 21:44, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Then REMOVE the hoax info, don't delete the entire article. I'm going to do that right now.
 * Im sorry, but he is not notable and if you read the discussion you would realise why. All the personal info is unreferance. He is a minor fraudster and has no place for a Wikipedia article. Read the article!--Berks105 21:47, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The discussion was not about whether or not he was notable, the article was deleted as a hoax. -Amarkov babble 21:50, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It was not entirely about that, but I still think he is notable. -Amarkov babble 21:51, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * A very, very minor fraudster is not notable. None of the Conservative info appears to be referenced, nor is any personal details. --Berks105 21:55, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * [edit conflict] Delete per my rationale in the previous AfD. Being a baronet doesn't make one automatically notable, since there are an awful lot of them. Aside from that, he's not done anything notable whether or not he exists. I'd almost be tempted to move for a Speedy as this is reposted content (as far as I can remember the text of the previous article). BigHaz - Schreit mich an 21:48, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment If he were a baronet, he would be notable. Phoe  talk 00:46, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't quite see why. As I understand it, baronetcies aren't peerages, so he wouldn't just be notable for who he is. The bare fact of a baronetcy doesn't seem to satisfy WP:BIO, either. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 00:50, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Changed to delete. One source doesn't exist, two don't mention him, and the other three are the EXACT SAME NEWS ARTICLE. -Amarkov babble 22:06, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, as hoax Phoe  talk 00:46, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete as reposted material. --DMG413 14:37, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Have updated the sources please check them. Richardwilfreds 15:58, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * While they sources do back up some facts, being a senior member of the Conservative Tomorrow, that was expelled is still not notable, especially as Conservative Future is the party's official young group not Conservative Tommorrow. --Berks105 19:05, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. It's a hoax. Have a look at the Brown Baronets page to see that his father was not a Baronet and therefore he could not possibly have inherited it. Nothing else in his story confers notability. Fys. &#147;Ta fys aym&#148;. 19:11, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * No claim is made that Brown inherited the title from his father - he is claiming an extant baronetcy from a distant ancestor, so the above comment is incorrect, further with Conservative Tomorrow claiming 2500 members they would have far more members than Conservative Future the official wing, which is why I remember their being such fuss about the matter when I served on the National Exec of Conservative Future back in 2001/2. Richardwilfreds 21:01, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 'Claiming' a Baronetcy is quite a different creature from having one. The Baronetcy in question was extinct some 300 years ago, I understand. 'Conservative Tomorrow' was never more than a tiny group, while CF has about 15,000 members. Fys. &#147;Ta fys aym&#148;. 21:04, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. minor hoaxer/publicity seeker. Plus article's title - both "Sir" part and "Baronet" part - violates WP:NPOV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ohconfucius (talk • contribs)


 * 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.