Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Winter, 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   delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  20:32, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Thomas Winter, 2nd Baronet

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

While there clearly was a George Winter, 1st Baronet, all evidence indicates that the baronetcy started and ended with him. British History Online states "George Winter was created a baronet 29 April 1642, (fn. 38) took the side of the king in the Civil war, (fn. 39) and died without issue on 4 June 1658, when the baronetcy became extinct." There are no google hits for Winter baronets (also not in books or scholar) All sources that counld be found for Robert Winter or Thomas Winter are about the people involved in the Gunpowder Plot, not some later baronets. This smells like a hoax (excluding the not nominated first and only baronet), butif not, it is unverifiable and not notable. Fram (talk) 14:58, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Also nominated:
 * Robert Winter, 3rd Baronet
 * Winter Baronets
 * The Hon. Benedict Winter


 * I suggest giving Michael Winter (professor) a long hard look. It seems apparent where this is originating.  I wouldn't be surprised if it transpired that, , and  are all one single person. And, yes, the Transactions of the Birmingham and Warwickshire Archaeological Society, 1889, page 132, state that the "grandson George" was "the first and last baronet of the house".  Similary, A Genealogical and Heraldic History of the Extinct and Dormant Baronetcies of England (John B. Burke, 1838. London: Scott, Webster, and Geary) states, in its entry for "Wintour, of Hoddington", that George Wintour "died without issue, 4th June 1658, when the title became EXTINCT".  Wikipedia appears to be being abused for one person's fake claim to noble ancestry.  These articles are a hoax, that is entirely contradicted by sources.  Delete. Uncle G (talk) 16:12, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * See also what Worcester1 writes in this edit. Uncle G (talk) 17:16, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails verifiability, unless reliable sources can be furnished to satisfy the criticisms raised in the nomination by Fram and the additional related criticisms by Uncle G. Edison (talk) 16:30, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * They'd have to be sterling quality sources to contradict the two Burkes. Uncle G (talk) 16:47, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Impressive research! D ARTH P ANDA duel 20:06, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Hoaxalicious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Edward321 (talk • contribs) 01:53, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete all but Winter Baronets, since a baronetcy was created for George. However, this should be moved to Wintour Baronets, to agree with Burke. Choess (talk) 02:41, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete all but Winter Baronets and Michael Winter, Professor. I am a Winter family historian paid for by a distant family. I have been in contact with several members of the family in America who told me everything about the baronetcy which I know with the help of Fram is now extinct and I am sorry for giving wrong information. In regard to Btdwinter, Bradford Winter is the 10 year old son of the family I am in contact with in America and has apparently mucked around on wikipedia a lot so he can not be blamed due to his age. The family in America do not know Prof. Winter but he is a very notable academic and there is a legend that his family is descended from the Winters/Wintours but through an illegitimate line, I have been in contact with him today and he had no idea he was even on wikipedia and has asked that his entry NOT BE DELETED but that the parts about his ancestry to be deleted as he himself agrees that there is not enough research to support his family's claims and he does not wish for them to be there. I am very sorry that I submitted wrong information but I was doing so on the authority of my clients. The page on Sir George Winter and Winter baronets should be continued. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Worcester1 (talk • contribs) 2008-11-02 17:01:52
 * Comment re Uncle G I suggest giving Michael Winter (professor) a long hard look. Definitely: it doesn't appear reliably sourced, and even if true, "a descendant ... of the Plantaganent (sic) Kings" is sheer WP:PEACOCK unless there's some notable high-visibility direct line. I've placed a factual accuracy tag on that section: might want to watch it, as   removed the hoax tag without fixing the problem. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 03:22, 4 November 2008 (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.