- 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 to Montgomery-Cuninghame baronets. Tone 13:42, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Thomas Montgomery-Cuninghame 8th Baronet ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Nothing evident to suggest this individual satisfies WP:GNG. Mutt Lunker ( talk) 10:41, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
- Comment - Mutt Lunker, I see a lot of subscription-required sources cited in the article. Did you review these? FOARP ( talk) 11:30, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
- I didn't. As far as I can see they wouldn't shed any useful light as they all reference matters that would not indicate notability, including non-notable actions or appointments or the existence of relatives, all but one having no indication of notability either (even were being related to someone of note satisfactory for one's own notability). Mutt Lunker ( talk) 12:03, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
- I thought I was creating a stub for others to expand on. To be honest, I am such a novice and will remain so, it has taken me ages to even find this. The 1851 Census shows him as living at 68 Eaton Place London and his occupation was Baronet with the 1861 Census showing him at 39 Princes Gate occupation Baronet. Entry in Probate Register, Baronet if that helps. But again, all subscription entry. I'll have to go back to his grandson's (Thomas Andrew Alexander Montgomery-Cuninghame) book (Dusty Measures) to see whether there is any mention in there. JCTilley( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:46, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
- No mention in Dusty Measure, nor in London to Tokyo (Sir John Tilley m. to TMC's granddaughter) JCTilley ( talk) 20:04, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
- I approached it "there is a page listing the Baronets and so it would be good to have a link to a page covering him" /info/en/?search=Montgomery-Cuninghame_baronets Just a different logic. If he still doesn't fit the criteria then he doesn't fit the criteria and he will need to be deleted. JCTilley ( talk) 20:31, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
- JCTilley - I see newspaper coverage included in the article, albeit subscription-only, did it actually give significant coverage of this man? For example, were they news stories about him? If there was nothing of this nature, just mentions of his name, then I am inclined to vote Delete. Census information is not significant coverage. FOARP ( talk) 08:33, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
- FOARP - No, not significant. I haven't been able to dig up that much on him at all to be fair. The Census was to show he was a Baronet in line with my thinking of the Wiki page Montogmery-Cuningham_baronets. JCTilley ( talk) 11:40, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
Delete (or alternativelyRedirect to Montgomery-Cuninghame baronets - Fails WP:GNG per above. Did consider whether he was notable per his titles but that requires WP:SIGCOV of them. FOARP ( talk) 11:41, 12 December 2019 (UTC) (edited per WP:CHEAP)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 11:52, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 11:52, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 11:52, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
- Johnhorowitz733 - Article does not indicate significant reputability and does not have significant coverage. Recommended for deletion.
- Redirect to the baronets page per WP:CHEAP. This appears to me to be entirely original research. Bearian ( talk) 16:27, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
- 'Redirect as suggested. This is a well researched article about a person of minimal notability. Neither being bart nor DL nor Lieut-Col provides notability; nor do these in combination do so. Peterkingiron ( talk) 15:10, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
- Searching in British Newspaper archive suggests that he was a Lieut-Col only 1850-1852. He would have continued to be called colonel after retiring, so that the 1856 reference is in an sense anachronistic but only implying he currently held the command. This reinforces my view that he was NN. Thisn contrasts with his son and successor who was notable as having a VC, the highest award fro bravery. Peterkingiron ( talk) 12:04, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
- Comment. Not worthy of a redirect, as the article should be, by our naming conventions, either Sir Thomas Montgomery-Cuninghame, 8th Baronet (which is already a redirect) or Thomas Montgomery-Cuninghame. The current title is not a correct one. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 11:14, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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 to Montgomery-Cuninghame baronets. Tone 13:42, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Thomas Montgomery-Cuninghame 8th Baronet ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Nothing evident to suggest this individual satisfies WP:GNG. Mutt Lunker ( talk) 10:41, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
- Comment - Mutt Lunker, I see a lot of subscription-required sources cited in the article. Did you review these? FOARP ( talk) 11:30, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
- I didn't. As far as I can see they wouldn't shed any useful light as they all reference matters that would not indicate notability, including non-notable actions or appointments or the existence of relatives, all but one having no indication of notability either (even were being related to someone of note satisfactory for one's own notability). Mutt Lunker ( talk) 12:03, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
- I thought I was creating a stub for others to expand on. To be honest, I am such a novice and will remain so, it has taken me ages to even find this. The 1851 Census shows him as living at 68 Eaton Place London and his occupation was Baronet with the 1861 Census showing him at 39 Princes Gate occupation Baronet. Entry in Probate Register, Baronet if that helps. But again, all subscription entry. I'll have to go back to his grandson's (Thomas Andrew Alexander Montgomery-Cuninghame) book (Dusty Measures) to see whether there is any mention in there. JCTilley( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:46, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
- No mention in Dusty Measure, nor in London to Tokyo (Sir John Tilley m. to TMC's granddaughter) JCTilley ( talk) 20:04, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
- I approached it "there is a page listing the Baronets and so it would be good to have a link to a page covering him" /info/en/?search=Montgomery-Cuninghame_baronets Just a different logic. If he still doesn't fit the criteria then he doesn't fit the criteria and he will need to be deleted. JCTilley ( talk) 20:31, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
- JCTilley - I see newspaper coverage included in the article, albeit subscription-only, did it actually give significant coverage of this man? For example, were they news stories about him? If there was nothing of this nature, just mentions of his name, then I am inclined to vote Delete. Census information is not significant coverage. FOARP ( talk) 08:33, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
- FOARP - No, not significant. I haven't been able to dig up that much on him at all to be fair. The Census was to show he was a Baronet in line with my thinking of the Wiki page Montogmery-Cuningham_baronets. JCTilley ( talk) 11:40, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
Delete (or alternativelyRedirect to Montgomery-Cuninghame baronets - Fails WP:GNG per above. Did consider whether he was notable per his titles but that requires WP:SIGCOV of them. FOARP ( talk) 11:41, 12 December 2019 (UTC) (edited per WP:CHEAP)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 11:52, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 11:52, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 11:52, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
- Johnhorowitz733 - Article does not indicate significant reputability and does not have significant coverage. Recommended for deletion.
- Redirect to the baronets page per WP:CHEAP. This appears to me to be entirely original research. Bearian ( talk) 16:27, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
- 'Redirect as suggested. This is a well researched article about a person of minimal notability. Neither being bart nor DL nor Lieut-Col provides notability; nor do these in combination do so. Peterkingiron ( talk) 15:10, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
- Searching in British Newspaper archive suggests that he was a Lieut-Col only 1850-1852. He would have continued to be called colonel after retiring, so that the 1856 reference is in an sense anachronistic but only implying he currently held the command. This reinforces my view that he was NN. Thisn contrasts with his son and successor who was notable as having a VC, the highest award fro bravery. Peterkingiron ( talk) 12:04, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
- Comment. Not worthy of a redirect, as the article should be, by our naming conventions, either Sir Thomas Montgomery-Cuninghame, 8th Baronet (which is already a redirect) or Thomas Montgomery-Cuninghame. The current title is not a correct one. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 11:14, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
- 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.