Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Francis Archibald Browne, 6th Baron Kilmaine


 * 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 keep. There seems to be a clear consensus that the article meets WP:GNG and WP:BIO. (non-admin closure) SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 00:51, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

John Francis Archibald Browne, 6th Baron Kilmaine

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not seeing any notability here. Slatersteven (talk) 18:30, 31 July 2018 (UTC)


 * The subject is one of the Barons of Kilmaine - there is a parent page for them - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baron_Kilmaine This article fills in one of the missing links. He was also secretary of the Pilgrim trust which is an important conservation charity. In addition he appears to have had an interesting war record. He was notable enough for his obituary to be printed in The Times. Robuttt 20:01, 31 2018 BST
 * But is being a member of a family or secretary of a notable charity) enough to establish independent notability?Slatersteven (talk) 20:20, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I would say so! But then I wrote the piece, so I'm biased. However, the Red Ink on the page suggests that a previous editor thought that he was notable enough to have a page. I've added more references, I don't know whether that helps?Robuttt (talk)
 * Maybe, but it is not down to us, we need in depth coverage by multiple RS independent of the subject. I am not wholly sure I am seeing that.Slatersteven (talk) 20:37, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The Times is one of the leading national newspapers in Britian. It's clearly a reliable source. There are references to a number of news items printed by the newspaper in the article Robuttt (talk)
 * I am not saying it is not RS I am saying that it does not appear to be significant coverage of him on the whole, thus I am not sure is enough to establish independent notability.Slatersteven (talk) 21:10, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I've checked the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography and there is an entry on him. A reference to which I will add. Hoping this is definitive. Robuttt (talk)
 * I am led to believe it is, I have never been that sure, but policy is policy.Slatersteven (talk) 22:13, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I haven't been through this before, but I would suggest that with the ODNB entry for him, which I've referenced in the article, that issues over notability have been resolved. Not sure what the protocol is. Is it ok to delete the PROD? Robuttt (talk)
 * I would wait until this is closed, but I see no reason not to close it.Slatersteven (talk) 10:38, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I think hopefully the article has been improved as a result of our discussion Robuttt (talk)


 * comment This seems to depend on the notability of the members of the Peerage of Ireland. Mangoe (talk) 19:06, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I've added some more information which hopefully makes his notability clearer Robuttt (talk) 20:02, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:19, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:19, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:19, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:19, 1 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep Per WP:ANYBIO(3) due to ODNB entry (+ my BEFORE shows additional sources, though the name variations here (in most places - without the Archibald - leaving us with fairly common names) are a bit of pain to search).Icewhiz (talk) 10:45, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep per Icewhiz. He's in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography and in Who's Who. Two portraits of him are in the National Portrait Gallery. has greatly improved the article and, imho, 31 minutes from creation to AfD was too quick. Mortee (talk) 11:08, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I disagree about the time, I have seen far older articles that have not been AFD'd that are in a far worse state. I have also seen work go into articles once they have been AFD'd that might not have been done had they not been. It took 5 hours for the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography source to show up. Up till then I was not sure it passed muster. So whilst ti may have been nominated only after half an hour it took 5 hours to get it in a state where I would not have nominated it.Slatersteven (talk) 11:15, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * My feeling is that, especially with new users, it would be better to go to the talk page and ask them if they have other sources. AfD can be stressful and might have been avoidable. That said,, you might consider working on new articles like this as a draft in your userspace and moving them to mainspace when they're more complete. That would make it easier for new page reviewers to see that the subjects are notable. Mortee (talk) 11:23, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I will do that in future - I should have done more research on how to submit an article rather than just going for it Robuttt (talk)
 * - another bit of unsolicited advice - looking at the version Slatersteven put up for deletion - it was sourced to a 1978 obit, and a 1946 suicide inquest (both in the Times). This is a level of sourcing that "screams" for an AfD. While working in draft/sandbox is perhaps prudent prior to putting the article up in main space, what is really key to avoiding a quick AfD/PROD/CSD is to have sources present in the article (as well as notable highlights of the subject) that establish notability - even if the article isn't fleshed out and is very short and stubby - if there is a list of on-topic references of high quality - AfD is much less likely - for instance the article in its present state probably wouldn't have been AfDed.Icewhiz (talk) 11:45, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I will know for next time. Sorry to waste people's time Robuttt (talk)


 * Keep. DNB entry, obit in The Times and CBE have all always been held as sufficient for notability individually. All three and he's a clear pass. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:36, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:39, 1 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep. Agree with Necrothesp's assessment appears to be sufficient sources to demonstrate notability. Finnegas (talk) 20:54, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:HEY. Putting aside arguments on the automatic notability of all Irish peers, this person appears to be notable based on the reliable sources found. Quibbling about the reliability of The Times likewise is specious. Bearian (talk) 22:46, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep -- Closely connected to several notable organisations. CBE and Honorary doctorate also point to notability.  However bad the version nominated may have been, the present version is clearly worth having.  Peterkingiron (talk) 14:43, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. Satisfies GNG and criteria 1 (because he was a CBE) and 3 of ANYBIO. An obituary in The Times is conclusive proof of notability, as is an entry in the ODNB. This nomination should not have been made. James500 (talk) 19:17, 6 August 2018 (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.