Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sir William Mount, 2nd 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, mainly since Richard had the best argument.-- Wizardman 00:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Sir William Mount, 2nd Baronet

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Reason No events of notability shown - existing and getting married does not pass WP:BIO possible redirect to Mount Baronets. Vintagekits 14:22, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Edison 16:41, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep or Merge I think it would be better to have all the shorter articles merged into Mount Baronets, but the decision should be made by the group working on British peerage based on the guidelines they created on who gets automated coverage. In the USA we give auto-notability down to the level of mayor. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 17:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment, but this guy aint a peer or a mayor.--Vintagekits 19:02, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Merge or delete We do not give autonotability to the mayors of small towns; and this does not even assert that he was a Justice of the Peace, which is less than a Mayor. But why not just merge and see what happens? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Meets criteria of WP:Notability. Needs improvement.--Edtropolis 19:20, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment, Which criteria does it meet? None that I have ever read! According to a member of the Arbitration Committee and the Peerage Project The presumption of notability for peers has never rested on them being peers in itself, but rather on the fact that up until 1999 most hereditary peerages earned you a seat in a national legislature, and members of national legislatures are presumed notable. Baronets have no such claim, and individual baronets must attempt to meet WP:BIO as individuals], so baronets are not automatically notable. --Vintagekits 12:55, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Merge I think we need to merge, because i cannot see how to justify keeping it if nothing more can be readily found. It's a shame in a way, because a thorough search might find well find something. The gentry usually did something to occupy their time. For all I know he might have been a notable foxhunter :). DGG 20:55, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete failes WP:BIO & WP:N, there are no sources, much less several independent ones; there is no assertion in his bio that he did anything but marry, have kids (must have to have a grandkid) and was a Lt. Col. in WW2. Well, notability is not inherited at this low level of aristocrat; being a Lt. Col. in WW2 is not notable; being the grandfather of an MP doesn't make you notable, and marrying and procreating don't make one notable; what's left? Carlossuarez46 00:58, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per Richard Arthur Norton. JJL 03:17, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - a baronetcy is a hereditary knighthood. A first baronet will be automatically notable - otherwise he would not have been thus honoured.  For a second (or subsequent) baronet notability needs to be established on the basis of what he has done, not who his father was.   Peterkingiron 23:52, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Partly per Richard Arthur Norton, partly from him being High Sheriff of Berkshire Edward321 18:52, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - After checking the Gazette today I note he appears to have been High Sheriff of Berkshire appointed in 1947
 * Comment, excellent, however unfortunately that is in no way a notable position.--Vintagekits 14:09, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment There's an article on High Sheriff of Berkshire, which say several editors disagree with Vintagekits' opinion on the notability of the position. Edward321 18:52, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment, how do you make that out? OK, if you consider the role of High Sheriff of Berkshire to be why do you tell us why! this will give everyone a good laugh.--Vintagekits 18:59, 17 June 2007 (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.