Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sir Oswald Mosley, 4th 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. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Sir Oswald Mosley, 4th Baronet

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

This person is not sufficiently notable, baronet (not to be confused with baron) is a very minor title, e.g. they do not and never did sit in the House of Lords, I am not aware of any guideline that they are inherently notable. His main claim to fame is that he was the grandfather of the best-known Oswald Mosley, leader of the British Union of Fascists, but notability is not inherited. PatGallacher (talk) 11:11, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

The Baronet article has a "List of notable baronets", suggesting that not all baronets are notable. PatGallacher (talk) 11:33, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Listed in Who's Who, and that wouldn't be the case if he wasn't notable.--Michig (talk) 12:27, 27 June 2010 (UTC) It's also worth noting that this Sir Oswald Mosley died before his more famous grandson became famous, so his entry in Who's Who would have had nothing to do with being related to Oswald Mosley.--Michig (talk) 12:42, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Reply I quote the Who's Who article: "Who's Who has been criticised for its conservatism. For example, all members of the English, Scottish, British and United Kingdom Peerage and Baronetage are included, however minor their achievements, but many better-known people are not." If we decide that everyone in Who's Who is inherently notable, we are casting the net very wide, in particular this means deciding that all baronets are inherently notable. There are around 1380 baronetcies at present, it's a sign of their marginal importance that the exact number is not definitely known. If we decide that all former holders are included this is a very large number of people. Within certain limits, Wikipedia is entitled to decide its own threshhold of notability, which is multiple reference. PatGallacher (talk) 14:01, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Who's Who has a somewhat higher bar for inclusion than Wikipedia. How many minor soap actors, pop singers and US college sportsmen are included in Wikipedia, who would have no chance of inclusion in Who's Who if they were British? The criticism you quoted is unsourced opinion from a Wikipedia editor that needs to be deleted from that article, not a valid critical source.--Michig (talk) 14:08, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Who's Who's bar of inclusion is not necessarily higher, it may just be different. PatGallacher (talk) 15:39, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Possibly, but I honestly can't imagine anyone getting into Who's Who these days who wouldn't be a valid subject for a Wikipedia article. The opposite certainly isn't true.--Michig (talk) 15:43, 27 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:45, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per Michig. I have also been able to find a few newspaper articles about the subject online, notwithstanding the fact that he died 95 years ago. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 21:19, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep I'm not sure if all baronets today are notable, or all Who's Who listees, but a baronet was rather more important, I think, in 19th century Britain, and there seem to be reliable sources Vartanza (talk) 04:29, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per Michig, Metro, and Vartanza. While I agree with the nominator that not at Baronets are notable, this person was notable, as show by being on the front page of a major British magazine, being in Who's Who, and online presence a century after his death. Bearian (talk) 17:42, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment This discussion may be getting a bit confused. If there are signficant online mentions of this person it would help to see what they are, and maybe we should add them as links to the article.  As Who's Who treats all baronets as inherently notable, if we treat inclusion in this publication as making someone notable we are effectively treating all baronets as inherently notable on Wikipedia.  It's not entirely clear from the mention that he was on the front page of the magazine, although possibly he was, and there could have been hundreds of such people over the years.  Although baronets may have been more important in the past than they are now, should we have a clear point before which all baronets are inherently notable? PatGallacher (talk) 18:59, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you have a reliable source for your claim that Who's Who includes all Baronets? Or anything to justify your opinion that Baronets weren't notable in the 19th century?--Michig (talk) 19:08, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Here is a source, see near the bottom of this page on Who's Who's website, they include all baronets: . Wikipedia is not paper, but there are limits.  It is well established that e.g. we do not treat all election candidates or all local councillors as inherently notable, I am not aware of any grounds for regarding baronets as any more notable. PatGallacher (talk) 20:27, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * That's useful to know. Whether or not baronet's are all considered notable today by WP standards I don't know, but I think the crucial question is whether a baronet in the 19th century would have been considered notable, and I think the answer is yes. If Mosley was notable by 19th century standards, which he appears to have been, then we should include him.--Michig (talk) 20:33, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep on the whole per this discussion; Spy did not caricature non-entities. If it is deleted, please put a copy in my user-space; the paragraph on his John Bullishness should be merged into Oswald Moseley, the grandson. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:48, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per Vanity Fair coverage. Caricature of him here.  AJRG (talk) 16:30, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per discussion. Kittybrewster  &#9742;  09:14, 2 July 2010 (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.