Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baron Merthyr

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 of the debate was KEEP by unambiguous and unanimous community decision. -- Psy guy ^Talk 05:27, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Baron Merthyr

No notability or relevance. Baroncruft. Stifle 18:15, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

• Oh, Keep. This describes a baroncy, not a specific person, and is relevant enough to the more general history of the British peerage to stay.--Lockley 19:18, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep. If we were to delete this one, we'd have to delete most of the articles in the whole Baronies category, too. I'm not sure I see the point of having all of them recorded, but this one is no less relevant than the others. Powers 19:40, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above. Ruby 19:51, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Lockley Jcuk 20:33, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above. AndyJones 23:42, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep all peerage titles should have an article. CalJW 00:07, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Expand with something on geographic location, an explanation of being "sworn off for life" in 1977 (surely this must be rare and noteworthy enough to be documented?), the reason the baroncy was created and bestowed on an old man in 1911, the names of the women who bore the subsequent barons, any occasions where a Merthyr baron led major action in Parliament, something surely must be on record worth encyclopedia inclusion. Barno 00:39, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as above. Gareth 17:00, 28 January 2006 (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.