Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sir Malcolm Colquhoun, 9th 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 keep. (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:53, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Malcolm Colquhoun, 9th 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) 13:54, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Baronet, but also very large landowner (45,000 acres in Scotland) and runs two schools in London. He is also the Chief of the Colquhoun Clan, representing the whole clan. If anything, his page needs to be expanded.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:11, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, probably one of the most notable baronets with an article here. Chief of a Scottish clan, significant landowner, reliable sources are available per WP:N, although they do need to be improved. Moonraker (talk) 08:30, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As above. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:04, 9 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Delete comments above may shows some notability but all those stuffs are not yet written near here. --Vituzzu (talk) 23:07, 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) 08:37, 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]
Keep - meets WP:N. Whether they sit in the House of Lords or not is not the criteria to establish notability. As stated by others above, a very significant landowner. SagaciousPhil - Chat 13:19, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a clan chief and the owner of a substanital Scottish estate. Not sure about schools conferrring notability, but they do not harm. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:50, 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.