Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edwyn Burnaby


 * 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 No consensus, defaulting to keep. The issue seems to boil down to whether this man's appointments or jobs were notable positions or simply ceremonial duties, and there are good arguments for both sides. - Krakatoa  Katie  05:48, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Edwyn Burnaby

 * – (View AfD) (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   (Talk to me)  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)
 * See Suspected sock puppets/Vintagekits Astrotrain 20:43, 18 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 attendance office akin to bailiff). The remainder of the entry is genealogical. --Dhartung | Talk 19:25, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: He is one of the monarch's representatives. He is also a magistrate (JP) and a member of Court with close access to the monarch. Wouldn't you say that was pretty notable? David Lauder 10:05, 13 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)
 * Comment, which part of WP:BIO states that if you hold a public office you are notable? Infact it states the opposite. As for "someone will find this interested and useful, and it's not up to us to debate who it is" - What can you say to that!?--Vintagekits 20:20, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * reponse to vintagekits this is exactly what wp:BIO says about politicians:  "Politicians who have held international, national or statewide/provincewide office, and members and former members of a national, state or provincial legislatures."  This is a provincewide office.  period.  there are secondary sources to establish notability.  period.  i dare say also that i feel your continued comments that respond to every single comment people put on here is bothersome and annoying.  let other people get into the discussion.  some people don't want to have their opinions heard if they feel someone is going to scream at them every time.  Barsportsunlimited 21:01, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I am not going to have a slanging match with you because you seem like the type of person that would never change his mind even if he thought he was wrong so what I will do is ask you what Province is it?--Vintagekits 21:04, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't want to have a slanging match with you either, but here you go again- questioning my comments and my arguments. It's getting ridiculous.  An AfD discussion isn't an investigation; I don't need to give a signed statement of fact or answer silly questions about provinces or anything else.  He's held a privince wide office.  PERIOD.  I don't care where, I don't care how, I don't care how long, and I certainly don't care to discuss it any further.  I would change my mind if you gave any actual arguments about anything, but you don't.  You don't give any arguments; you just sit around and try to point out holes in other people's arguments by writing what I would deem rather abusive comments towards people trying to advance their opinion.  The fact that you are this invested in debunking a disinterested editor's arguments like myself only add fuel to the accusations that of a bad faith nom.Barsportsunlimited 21:23, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The problem is that he didnt hold a Province wide office - what Province is it - this is an AfD - it is a discussion not a vote. --Vintagekits 21:26, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Huh, it looks like one of your typos but isnt found elsewhere on the page, SqueakBox 21:14, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete on the grounds that it is a largely honorary appointment and merely receiving it fails WP:N and WP:BIO. If we kept this because he held a ceremonial appointive post, then we would need to keep articles for all Kentucky Colonels, Indiana recipients of the Sagamore of the Wabash, Nebraska admirals , Admirals in the Texas Navy , and honorary Colonels of Tennessee, South Carolina, Georgia, Louisiana, North Dakota, and Alabama. In some of these cases, the title was once actually a commission in the state militia or as an aide to the governor, but now they are ceremonial or honorary. Some but not all of the recipients of these awards were otherwise notable, as successful businessmen, entertainers, artists, civil rights pioneers, or athletes, so if a High Sheriff is otherwise notable he can certainly have an article. Edison 20:04, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, not a noteworthy figure for wikipedia to have an article on. Tiocfaidh Ár Lá! 20:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete I'd say merge to High Sheriff of Leicestershire - except we don't have an article. If we don't have an article on an office - and he's only notable for holding the office - we're really scrapping the barrel-Docg 21:44, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep - Wikipedia is not short of space yet and British history and those who made it needs to be documented. Should be expanded rather than deleted. --Gibnews 22:23, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Gibnews - you'll get no-one more committed to British History than me. But how did this individual 'make history' and where on earth would the sources to expand it exist? Give me some answers and I might change my !vote.--Docg 22:27, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete, as per Doc the High Sheriff of Leicestershire does not seem that notable a role -- Barryob   Vigeur de dessus  22:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Nothing notable about this person.--padraig3uk 23:16, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep I do not assume he is not notable because his office was appointive--a succession of such office indicates an influential country gentleman. I'm not going to start trying to do 19th century local history, but I would assume that printed sources of the time have material about all such gentr. Ths is a reasonably modest and appropriate article, unlike some others. DGG 02:06, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep- a very notable gentleman in his time, and with important royal ancestory to Her Majesty- sourced and verifiable with potential for expansion. Astrotrain 08:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * What's the potential for expansion? Can you indicate some sources? Or is that just clairvoyance - which isn't a good argument?--Docg 08:20, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * There are expansion potentials in his army career and court appointments, and more on his family life. Astrotrain 09:20, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * And where would there be secondary sourcing for that?--Docg 11:40, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep: One of the Queen's official representatives in a county, as well as a magistrate, as well as a member of Court close to the monarch. Sufficiently notable. David Lauder 09:36, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * That might merit mention on a list of holder of office x, but in the absence of any biographical sources there's not more to say. We are not Who's Who.--Docg 11:40, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Firstly Who's Who is a publication of those living today. This a short biographic stub about an individual notable in his time. Encyclopaedias are full of stub small entries. There is plenty of scope within Wikipedia for this sort of an entry. David Lauder 12:00, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. Verified and notable. - Kittybrewster  (talk) 00:49, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Stong Keep Nomination is wrong on most points.  High Sheriff and member of the Privy chamber were not purely ceremonial positions when Burnaby was appointed. Just because a position is appointed does not make it non-notable, either. All members of the Supreme Court of the United States are appointed. So are all Cabinet ministers, like Secretary of Defense or Secretary of State. US Senators were appointed until 1912.  (I could go on.) Edward321 15:05, 16 June 2007 (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.