Deletion of Sir William Arbuthnot, 2nd Baronet

Comment: I think the whole thing is misleading - there needs to be two independent discussion 1. a discussion on whether volumes such as "Debrett's Peerage" and "Who's Who" meets  and 2. a discussion on whether or not the various forms of the title Baronet confers automatic notability
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: No assertion of notability, no evidence of multiple independent non-trivial sources, fails  as well. This article has |conflict of interest problems as well
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO||WP:COI)

Comment: patently rediculous nom, passes  and the like.  Ethical judgements about whether someone ''merits'' being notable have no place here, but I'll believe this nom is the result of a gross misunderstanding of policy rather than being done in bad faith to prove a point. I stand by the keep, although I'll say ''I knew something was rotten in the state of Wikipedia, but it seems I was wrong in my guess about what
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO)

Comment: Notability is not only something which is gained by a person's own actions, it can be thrust upon people without any voluntary action of their own. The fact that a significant number of people hold Baronets, regardless of what they have done, to be interesting and worthy of record means that a holder of a Baronetcy is notable. The article is acceptably sourced for a |biography of a living person; while Who's Who and Debretts do rely on the subjects of entries for updates, they will check and refuse inaccuracies. (People claiming bogus honours do not get in
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP)

Comment: As for  I think it should apply except where the subject is not notable. That is why I impelled VK towards AFD rather than debating my own notability (which would have been ). I thought it best that others determine the matter. That does not imply that I think his "nn" tags" and AfD are good faith. Nor do I Have to where the evidence shows otherwise. I have felt he has been stalking me for some time and only this morning was arguing "murder vs killing" with me at the Village Pump
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Autobiography (WP:AUTO||WP:COI)

Comment: per nom, no does not meet  or 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO||WP:N)

Comment: With all this discussion and with about 1,299 other baronets out there, wouldn't it be worthwhile for Wikipedia to have a special rule for baronets in otability? Even if it's just a line saying "these provisions also apply to baronets" (alternately, "The following rules apply to baronets..." or "The rules don't apply to baronets because ..."). Might save time in the future. Just a thought. Oh, I see this point's been covered. Never mind. (another Emily Litella moment
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: per nomination. A mere directory listing in the telephone book-like peerage directory does not satisfy . It is as poor an excuse for "inherent notability" as a listing of someone in Daughters of the American Revolution would be. Merely having an ancestor who was given a an honorary title does not satisfy . And there have been way too many violations of PA and  in this discussion
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:BIO||WP:NPA||WP:AGF)

Comment: Reluctant because Vintagekits has behaved in an appalling fashion in this discussion (is it really necessary to aggressively challenge every Keep vote?), but Delete because the primary assertion to notability here appears to be of the "baronetcy confers notability" variety, and I can't find justification for that in existing policies and guidelines (and I admit that the |autobiography and |conflict of interest issues here are a bit troubling).  I'm willing to reconsider pending further evidence on the nature of the references used, however - based on what I've seen thus far, I'm not certain that they qualify as independent, but I'll be monitoring this discussion and taking note of further evidence to the contrary
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Autobiography (WP:AUTO||WP:COI)

Comment: It seems to me everybody has now contributed their pennyworth so it is legitimately “my turn” before the thing is closed. First, I am convinced this was a rancorous nomination in bad faith although I believe VK thought it might be insufficiently notable to pass . Second I always believed it would inevitably end up as no concensus because it is (marginally) more interesting than the equally passionately debated afd on Sir Keith Arbuthnot, 8th Baronet. The thing that made this even more likely to be a keep was VK who cannot help himself challenging, debating and having the final word. He is a wikipedian who comes straight from his heart. What surprised me was that 6 SPAs voted delete on it – which suggests somebody doesn’t know that is pointless vote stacking. Somebody suggested to me that the thing is on a newsboard or blog or something – but I haven’t found it. VK's problem with me is his belief set out on talk of this afd. But he should  or even demand a review of some kind (and abide by the outcome and then let it drop).  He does not do that; he consistently revisits dead issues. He does not recognise that birds of a feather flock together (as do many Irish republicans, apparently) and that some of us monitor each others’ contributions. He should not react by stalking editors or articles I have contributed to, adding ludicrous nn and fact tags (one of which questioned a date of death in 1862). My problem is some of the outrageous remarks VK makes http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28policy%29&diff=125617663&oldid=125608943
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO||WP:AGF)

Comment: I am not voting because . But once the closer has determined the vote I would like to make a general comment or two
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest (WP:COI)

Comment: per norm, fails . This person is not an important member of the nobility, there is no reason for this inclusion
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO)

Comment: since this seems to be a |potentially bad-faith nom. If we don't have a policy on this (i.e. what levels of nobility are notable by default), then we should have
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point (WP:POINT)