Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sir David O'Grady Roche, 5th Baronet

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 merge to Roche baronets. and/or Marge :P slakr^\ talk / 06:00, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sir David O'Grady Roche, 5th Baronet[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) 13:50, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Roche baronets, unless someone can add reliable sources to demonstrate notability. Moonraker (talk) 17:07, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Roche baronets, "being born" cannot mean notability. For the sake of completeness being mentioned in a page about the family is enoug. --Vituzzu (talk) 23:06, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: whether or not one approves of the hereditary baronetage, there are still plenty of people interested in the present holder of an historical title.45ossington (talk) 08:38, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument is invalid, we are not dealing with peerage but with almost empty useless pages. --Vituzzu (talk) 10:50, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Marge to article on baronetcy. He seems to be a NN Chartered Accountant who happens to have a handle on his name. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:47, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. The growing consensus is that baronets are not that notable; we have begun to merge them into one article, unless they are clearly beyond marginal notability. Bearian (talk) 16:20, 20 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.