Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sir Thomas Osborne, 5th 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. I know this got a minimal amount of discussion, but it's been out here for two weeks already so rather than relist, I'm just going to call this a keep. If anybody feels strongly about arguing for deletion, no prejudice against an immediate re-nomination -- RoySmith (talk) 12:59, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Sir Thomas Osborne, 5th Baronet

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I don't see any grounds for notability here beyond his hereditary baronetcy which in itself is not sufficient grounds for notability. A baronet is the lowest inherited titled British order, and while hereditary Barons, Viscounts, Earls, Marquesses and Dukes were entitled to sit in the House of Lords and pass judgement on British Law prior to the House of Lords Act 1999, hereditary baronets have never had the automatic right to sit in the upper House of Lords, and thus are constitutionally insignificant. Flaming Ferrari (talk) 13:19, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 8 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - This man died in 1715, therefore he is somewhat historical, especially as he is listed as Irish baronet and the baronetcy having begun with James I. He served as High Sheriff, although past the point when JPs and Assizes had become more important. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dhtwiki (talk • contribs) 12:23, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - he was a high sheriff, knighted, and a baronet in Ireland when such things mattered (1715, not 1999). While the growing consensus is that baronets are not that notable, and we often have merged them into one article, this guy appears to have been easily notable, and once notable, always notable. Bearian (talk) 16:24, 20 March 2014 (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.