- 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. ✗plicit 12:54, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Anderson baronets of St Ives (1629) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
A very short-lived title where neither the baronetcy nor the sole baronet seem to have done anything noteworthy, they just existed, and are noted as such in a few very exhaustive lists of British nobility. 90% of the article is not about the baronet or the baronetcy, but about their extended family. Perhaps a redirect to a list of 17th c. baronetcies or some such would be the best here, and if no good target is found then deletion. Fram (talk) 07:34, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The creation of the baronetcy in 1629 was an event early in the Personal Rule of Charles I. The content of the article is adequate to give an idea what was going on. There is nepotism: the Duke of Buckingham, who had just died at the Siege of La Rochelle, and was the most powerful person in the country after the king, was the great-uncle of John Anderson who was given the title. There is politics: Anderson's stepfather was a supporter in parliament of Charles and the Duke, and financially had backed the military expedition to La Rochelle. In return for the stepfather's support, and as a compliment to the Villiers family, Anderson was given a title (may have been paid for).
- Talking about "in a few very exhaustive lists of British nobility" is not exactly a fair description of the major references given (Burke, Cokayne, Rietstap). These are substantial works in the 19th century style, much more than lists. The topic passes WP:GNG.
- This article was put up for PROD deletion four minutes after its creation, by User:Fram. Fram is not always wrong, but I gave my reaction to that on my user talk. The fact is that Anderson was a college student around 1626, and died 1630. The major political context can be seen in https://www.historyofparliamentonline.org/volume/1604-1629/member/leigh-sir-francis-1598-1653-0. I see the topic as encyclopedic. Charles Matthews (talk) 08:00, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Rietstep is an extremely short entry[1], indicating just how notable (or not) this one is. And yes, all three (Rietstep, Burke, Cokayne) are "very exhaustive lists", their rule is "you get a title, you get an entry", without any further considerations. Being given a title out of nepotism doesn't make someone (or that title) notable though. Fram (talk) 08:17, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, let's look at the guideline. Under WP:CONRED you are supposed under D3 to have considered the referencing, and concluded that the references are "insufficient", e.g. "just passing mention of the topic". That is not the case for Burke and Cokayne. For Rietstap, which is about heraldry, reference is to another (later) Anderson baronetcy just up the page, which shared the escutcheon. So I don't think the criticism is fair. By the way, I think the baronetcy is notable, because it is covered by relevant literature on titles of nobility. I have not said that Anderson is a notable person, and I don't think the title baronet confers notability. So could we stay on-topic? Charles Matthews (talk) 08:38, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I have concluded that the references are insufficient, otherwise I wouldn't propose to delete or redirect the article. Cokayne is nothing but he was born, created a baronet, died, baronetcy extinct. Burke is the same with slightly different words. If even these highly specialized and exhaustive works have so little to say about this, then I don't believe this baronetcy meets the GNG. Fram (talk) 09:09, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- The works have a standard scope, and Wikipedia's scope is broader. The context is there in the article, but has to stop short of OR. What you are saying means you could tag the article with ((notability)): as it is, 48 hours after its creation as part of a bigger project on Anderson baronets, you have twice invoked deletion processes. Where's the fire? Charles Matthews (talk) 09:43, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- You have a week to present better sources which give us any non-routine information about the baronetcy, as that is all you have now; the most routine information. It's comparable to a register of companies, where you have the date of foundation and end date the year after, and the name of the founder. Okay, and? What did it do, what impact did it have on people, what happened during the existence? Apparently, absolutely nothing, but it existed, and its existence may, perhaps, somehow, be an example of something in this period in British history, but no historian at all has ever used this baronetcy as even an example of this apparently. Why should we wait longer? Do you want it draftified so you get six months to search for better sources? Fram (talk) 10:13, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Yup, as predicted by the trajectory at WP:CHANCE (but I didn't remove the PROD), followed by the reasoning of WP:NIME. Charles Matthews (talk) 11:33, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Like long-forgotten skirmishes in provincial wars, the UK aristocracy is of enduring and encyclopaedic interest. Generally, the creation of a title has stood as GNG. In this case, I don't see a good argument against the article anyway. It's well-sourced and fairly well-written; the subject has enough meat on it for several paragraphs and enough sources to draw from; the subject is mentioned regularly in scholarly lists (thus establishing enduring coverage); and it's actually rather interesting. I have a problem with the plural in the title (there was only one and there is no prospect of a second), but that's not the issue of this AfD. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 13:47, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per keepers. Johnbod (talk) 21:55, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Burke and Cokayne both have entries specifically about this baronetcy. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 04:14, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.