Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hereditary in gross

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 redirect. (non-admin closure) Mkdw ^talk 05:38, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hereditary in gross

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nominate for deletion Has been tagged as of doubtful notability for over 5 years. I couldn't establish notability. Boleyn (talk) 19:58, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 06:37, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 06:37, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 06:37, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rename -- to Hereditary offices in gross or similar. It might be better if it were merged, possibly to Serjeanty. They are not serjeanties, but the converse. Where land is held by serjeanty, there is an office to be performed as an incidnet of tenure. Here the offices are hereditary but performed, other than as an incident of tenure. This is not nonsense, but I suspect that they offices are so few that there is little room for expansion, so that it is not exactly a stub. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:08, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but move. This is a perfectly good stub or dab page. A merge is also an option. Bearian (talk) 23:53, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 01:04, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

REdirect to Serjeanty. I have been BOLD and followed by own suggestion of merging the content with that article. Accordingly the appropriate course is to complete the merger process by making this article a redirect, but I leave that to the closing ADMIN. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:36, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 02:20, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 04:03, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a redirect -- Following my last effort on this, my merger of the article into Serjeanty has not been reverted, so that whoever else is watching that article presumably has no objection. Last time I commented, I left it to the closing admin to convert it to a redirect. Since User:Mediran has not been willing to do that, I have now done so, leaving only also a category and defaultsort, which may be preventing the defaultsort working. Close NOW somehow. The discussion has bene open far too long. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:32, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as redirect: have just removed irrelevant tags including "stub" as it's now a good redirect. PamD 10:29, 6 February 2013 (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.