| Revision as of 17:56, 12 June 2007 editRichardWeiss (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users75,870 edits rm trolling← Previous edit | Revision as of 18:01, 12 June 2007 edit undoVintagekits (talk | contribs)22,333 edits you can get blocked for removing other peoples comments - do not do it againNext edit → | ||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
| ***Any chance you could comment on the point the editor made rather than the editor?--] 16:44, 12 June 2007 (UTC) | ***Any chance you could comment on the point the editor made rather than the editor?--] 16:44, 12 June 2007 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Keep''' notable, ] 17:26, 12 June 2007 (UTC) | *'''Keep''' notable, ] 17:26, 12 June 2007 (UTC) | ||
| :*'''Comment''', Please note this !vote ] this editors positoon on another AfD and should be discounted.--] 17:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Delete''' I can't see the value of having him in the Encyclopedia. If we let the site get bogged down with usual information it defeats the point of wikipedia. The site is for recording useful and valuable knowledge. Not trival matters such as this. I know someone that served as he of my city's Committee of Adjusts, he shouldn't be on wikipedia nor should Edwyn Burnaby. If the site was to list all the people in English history that 'served' in these useless positions what good would it serve?] 17:40, 12 June 2007 (UTC) | *'''Delete''' I can't see the value of having him in the Encyclopedia. If we let the site get bogged down with usual information it defeats the point of wikipedia. The site is for recording useful and valuable knowledge. Not trival matters such as this. I know someone that served as he of my city's Committee of Adjusts, he shouldn't be on wikipedia nor should Edwyn Burnaby. If the site was to list all the people in English history that 'served' in these useless positions what good would it serve?] 17:40, 12 June 2007 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 18:01, 12 June 2007
Edwyn Burnaby
- Edwyn Burnaby (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
Attempts to discuss notability have been ignored so I am forced to AfD. This person held no notable title or role. He held purely ceremonial role such as Deputy Sheriff and Deputy Lieutenant during his 60's before his death but these title hold no actual power and are purely ceremonial - therefore failing WP:BIO. Vintagekits 15:21, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
- Strong keep. He was High Sheriff of Leicestershire which is notable, albeit within a limited circle! Certainly notable enough for the fact to be recorded in publicly accessible secondary sources - the very definition of notability. Many English counties have lists of High Sheriffs (see here) although Leicestershire is not among them as yet. All those with lists carry a request to expand them - in other words to create more articles like the one being slated for deletion here! Personally I have no interest in minor 19th century English aristocrats, but I'm sure there are people who do. Kim Dent-Brown 15:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
- Comment, on what basis is the role of High Sheriff of Leicestershire notable - the role is not an elected one and hold no powers other then ceremonial. Why per WP:N and WP:BIO is this role notable - it is less notable than a local councillor and that role also fails WP:N.--Vintagekits 15:43, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
- Delete* No point in getting bogged down on such insignificant roles in history. Are we to include local councillors who at least were voted into position? I think not Coeur-sang 16:26, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
- This user has only 6 contributions (4 of which are AFDs for British nobles) Astrotrain 16:42, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
- Any chance you could comment on the point the editor made rather than the editor?--Vintagekits 16:44, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
- This user has only 6 contributions (4 of which are AFDs for British nobles) Astrotrain 16:42, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
- Keep notable, SqueakBox 17:26, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
- Comment, Please note this !vote is in retaliation for my !vote opposing this editors positoon on another AfD and should be discounted.--Vintagekits 17:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
- Delete I can't see the value of having him in the Encyclopedia. If we let the site get bogged down with usual information it defeats the point of wikipedia. The site is for recording useful and valuable knowledge. Not trival matters such as this. I know someone that served as he of my city's Committee of Adjusts, he shouldn't be on wikipedia nor should Edwyn Burnaby. If the site was to list all the people in English history that 'served' in these useless positions what good would it serve?Maplecelt 17:40, 12 June 2007 (UTC)