Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Halsey (priest)

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. j⚛e decker ^talk 15:43, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

John Halsey (priest)[edit]

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

I don't see any grounds for notability here beyond his hereditary baronetcy which in itself is not sufficient grounds for notability. A baronet is the lowest inherited titled British order, and while hereditary Barons, Viscounts, Earls, Marquesses and Dukes were entitled to sit in the House of Lords and pass judgement on British Law prior to the House of Lords Act 1999, hereditary baronets have never had the automatic right to sit in the upper House of Lords, and thus are constitutionally insignificant. Flaming Ferrari (talk) 13:38, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:44, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:44, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:44, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, appears to be notable per WP:N, as the page already has some good reliable sources and no doubt more could be found. It is probably correct that this man is "constitutionally insignificant", but we do not make that a requirement of notability. By the way, Flaming Ferrari, it is a non sequitur to say "hereditary baronets have never had the automatic right to sit in the upper House of Lords, and thus are constitutionally insignificant." Sir Robert Peel (twice prime minister) is one exception which springs to mind. And of course several peers are also baronets. Moonraker (talk) 18:55, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- I make this vote reluctantly, but there is a clear consensus that many baronets are NN. I see nothing in this biography to indicate that he is more than a fairly typical clergyman. Being superior of Scottish Community of the Transfiguration might have made him notable, but the article with that name appears to be an unrelated American order. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:29, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Peterkingiron. While higher-up peers, such as dukes and earls, are likely considered notable, there is no clear consensus on baronets. Neither are all priests notable, compared to bishops and archdeacons. Bearian (talk) 19:44, 17 March 2014 (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.