Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sir Matthew Brown, 4th Baronet of London
- 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. (aeropagitica) 09:42, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
 | If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}. |
Non-notable individual who is listed as having claimed an extinct Baronetcy in England. No independent confirmation found. Probable vanity. Also nominated under identical material at Matthew Brown (Socialite). DMG413 23:54, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Claim was published in The Times and London Gazette. Entry can also be found in Who's Who. James. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.188.112.172 (talk • contribs)
Fail to see how vanity when clearly, even if forgetting claim to baronetcy and only through his father/business he is a figure of note. Wilfredclose 01:15, 19 September 2006 — Wilfredclose (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, JS14877 02:01, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Keep Would agree with Wilfredclose, figure is notable. JS14877 — JS14877 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Keep I know I am new here, new to the internet if I am truthful, so please ignore if inappropriate comments. If the claim to the baronetcy has been established, or submitted it would perhaps suggest that the figure is one of note. Rest of biog needs more support, I would agree and would suggest allowing time for this? On balance keep. Nationalalamo — Nationalalamo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Keep Article seems to be developing, benefit of the doubt for further source material to come? 12588 — 12588 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Delete I hate to disagree with the, uh, unity, of the above editor(s?) but I don't find, in the links, any verification on the alleged baronetcy, and what's left looks like an upper-class delinquent who was active in politics as a teenager. And we never keep an article in hopes that "future source material" will come. If you want it kept now, find sources now. Fan-1967 02:36, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. A baronet does not appear to make one notable itself (note that it is not a peerage); this young numbskull has done little but inherit some money. The picture, incidentally, appears to be of one "William Summerskill". Also, the emphasis on titles smells of WP:VAIN. bikeable (talk) 03:21, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as a non-notable (if rich) person. If the claim to the baronetcy is a serious one, I'm not convinced that every single baronet on the planet is notable just for being one. If the claim is false, then we're left with someone who hasn't actually done anything much notable aside from being a rich socialite, which should be reason for deletion in itself I sometimes think. His father doesn't appear to be notable either, but that's academic since only the immediate family of royals tend to inherit notability without doing anything. BigHaz - Schreit mich an (Review me) 07:02, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
-Keep-I would disagree with bikeable in that surely a baronetcy makes one noticable, given the small numbers of them around? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.118.114.162 (talk • contribs)
- Note The above "unsigned" attribution is forged. Vote actually entered by 172.188.112.172 (talk · contribs) who had already voted above. The sockpuppetry in this discussion is amazing, and makes the claims all that much more dubious. Fan-1967 13:53, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
- Note 2 - per this list, there is in fact a very large number of baronetcies still extant. BigHaz - Schreit mich an (Review me) 21:06, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete - In a previous edit the article said his father was "Lord Brown of Wan Chai", who I don't think actually exists. No sources for his 'baronetcy'. This is a hoax.--Berks105 09:36, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, WP:HOAX is not a speedy deletion criterion. Fan-1967 13:48, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
- Actually, yes it is. It's vandalism (according to WP:HOAX itself), which is indeed a criterion for speedy deletion. -- Necrothesp 00:28, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Utter rubbish. -- Necrothesp 00:24, 21 September 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.