Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aylesbury Baronets

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 per consensus PeaceNT 08:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Aylesbury Baronets

Aylesbury Baronets (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Extinct political or honorary office had only one apparently otherwise nonnotable holder appointed 1627. "Aylsbury baronets" gets 2 Google hits. Unless all titles of nobility which ever existed in the world are inherently notable, delete for lack of notability. Wikipedia does not need to contain copies of everything in every reference book or directory. Inkpaduta 21:11, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. This article is part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Baronetcies and will be expanded. - Kittybrewster 00:06, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep While a baronet itself is not automatically notable, a baronetcy it is in any case. ~~ Phoe _talk 13:33, 17 February 2007 (UTC) ~~
• Weak Keep Office held by holder was powerful at the time in question. Article creation is pretty new I'm perfectly prepared to assume at present there is an article given time that could justify keep. Alci12 13:47, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep: as per all the keeps above. In addition, to the nominator, who cares how many internet "hits" it gets? Ever heard of libraries? A Baronet is notable, like it or not. David Lauder 17:18, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep: article is a stub and author has said that it will be expanded.--Major Bonkers 18:43, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment In fairness, the article has had no work done on it in the four months since it was created. One Night In Hackney 19:33, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. So much to do; so little time. - Kittybrewster 19:37, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment It wasn't meant as a criticism, just it would be nice to see some improvement in the near future. One Night In Hackney 19:41, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment.Kitty, its funny that that is not the view you hold on other articles that have been up for AfD. And strange that the usual suspects who canvas amongest themselves on AfD's have turned up here again.--Vintagekits 19:41, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. Different AfDs invite different responses, don't they? Delighted to see you have joined my fan club, Vintage. - Kittybrewster 20:29, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

• keep The subject of the articles is properly N, and it fits within the project--I do not know the motivations of any of the participants here & dont see why it matters.DGG 08:35, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep: article needs expanding, not deleting. Notable by definition under WP:NOBLE and as a part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Baronetcies. Laura1822 21:16, 19 February 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.