| Revision as of 19:25, 12 June 2007 editDhartung (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers24,482 edits →[]: d← Previous edit | Revision as of 19:29, 12 June 2007 edit undoBarsportsunlimited (talk | contribs)75 edits →[]Next edit → | ||
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
| *'''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) | ||
| *'''Delete'''. ] is a largely ceremonial appointment, not a substantial judicial office (and not even local judges would normally be ], let alone an attendanc office akin to bailiff). The remainder of the entry is ]. --] | ] 19:25, 12 June 2007 (UTC) | *'''Delete'''. ] is a largely ceremonial appointment, not a substantial judicial office (and not even local judges would normally be ], let alone an attendanc office akin to bailiff). The remainder of the entry is ]. --] | ] 19:25, 12 June 2007 (UTC) | ||
| *'''keep''' if you read WP:ISNOTPAPER, you'll find it doesn't matter how many we get 'bogged down with.' We are to assume unlimited space, and as such the only criteria for this entry should be verifiability & notability. Verifiability is met, but notability is questioned by the nom and others. I don't see the claim of "no notability." This man held a public office, whether you consider it to be ceremonial or not or 'interesting' or not is entirely besides the point. someone will find this interested and useful, and it's not up to us to debate who it is. He held a public office and it is documented, therefore he meet WP:BIO. ] 19:29, 12 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 19:29, 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)
 | If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Misplaced Pages contributors. Misplaced Pages has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}. |
- 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)
- 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)
- Delete. High sheriff is a largely ceremonial appointment, not a substantial judicial office (and not even local judges would normally be notable, let alone an attendanc office akin to bailiff). The remainder of the entry is genealogical. --Dhartung | Talk 19:25, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
- keep if you read WP:ISNOTPAPER, you'll find it doesn't matter how many we get 'bogged down with.' We are to assume unlimited space, and as such the only criteria for this entry should be verifiability & notability. Verifiability is met, but notability is questioned by the nom and others. I don't see the claim of "no notability." This man held a public office, whether you consider it to be ceremonial or not or 'interesting' or not is entirely besides the point. someone will find this interested and useful, and it's not up to us to debate who it is. He held a public office and it is documented, therefore he meet WP:BIO. Barsportsunlimited 19:29, 12 June 2007 (UTC)