Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baron Cunard

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 19:36, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

Baron Cunard

Baron Cunard is simply wrong. A baronet is not a baron, there is no "Baron Cunard", and there never has been one (or two)! - Nunh-huh 08:40, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Are you sure? The article seems to have been lifted verbatim, except for the addition of the parenthetical "(not)", from here. There is an interesting list of peerage titles on that site as well. --Smithfarm 10:26, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Actually, they lifted it from here, they mirror Wikipedia (see the backlink to us at the bottom of their page?). Yes, I'm sure. There are no listings for a Cunard barony in The Complete Peerage or in Burke's Peerage and Baronetage. It seems clear that the article results from someone confusing "baronet" for "baron". A Google search for "Baron Cunard" shows about 10 hits, all of them the result of Wikipedia's misinformation. - Nunh-huh 10:50, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

OK, see it now. You are saying that Samuel Cunard was a baronet, not a baron. Aside from the baronet/baron confusion, is the rest of the info in the article correct? Could the article be salvaged by changing references to "Baron" to "Baronet" and changing the title to something like "Cunard Baronetage"? --Smithfarm 11:41, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

There seems little reason to do so, unless you propose making an article for every baronetcy. - Nunh-huh 12:31, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

No, only the notable ones. The Cunard Baronetcy could be argued to be notable because of Samuel Cunard. Now, the Wikipedia article on Samuel Canard says he is the 1st Baronet in the line. But the article doesn't say who the others were, which would whet my curiosity if I saw it. Seems like this improperly named "Baron Cunard" article is providing that information. So, possible merge to Samuel Cunard? --Smithfarm

Yes, any baronetcy could be argued to be notable, though it's hard to think of one that is. This one isn't. His son was the 2nd and last Bt. There's nothing to merge here. Cunard is famous for his accomplishments, not for his baronetcy. - Nunh-huh 14:56, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

OK, I'm suggesting on the relevant talk page that we strike the words 1st Baronet from the title to the Samuel Cunard article, as he is not notable for his Baronet-ness, much less for the fact that he is the 1st of these insignificant creatures. That will solve the problem for me and we can delete. --Smithfarm

• Delete - David Gerard 19:37, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Agree to delete. Note also that creator JillandJack is a banned user who has a history of very problematic edits to Canadian history articles. Bearcat 00:17, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. James F. (talk) 23:52, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Unneccesary since the peerage is extinct, and Samuel Cunard has his own article.Fawcett5 22:46, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.