Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard de Byron


 * 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 Delete. (Apart from the clear consensus here for deletion, it is worth mentioning that the articles also qualify for speedy deletion as having been created by a blocked editor evading blocks on both accounts and IP addresses.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:38, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Richard de Byron

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails general notability guidelines (WP:GNG), being just a minor landholder who has received no significant coverage. The page is entirely genealogical in nature - he was son of these people, he married this person and he had this heir, and hence flies in the face of WP:NOTGENEALOGY. An IP tried to insert the male-line ancestry of the family tracing all the way back to the 11th century into the pages of much later family members, but that was reverted. Then a new User name appeared and created these pages that appear to have the sole intent of presenting the same genealogical information in the form of individual linked pages. No references are given for the entire page, in spite of the editor being instructed to do so for pages they have created, and the editor refuses (or hasn't figured out how) to engage in discussion. This looks like one person's genealogical project. Page should be Redirected to Byron family, also created by the same editor, also without references, but a better platform to discuss the limited information that has appeared on the individual family members. (That page already has the genealogical details that have been expressed with more elaborate prose here, so a merge is not necessary.) Agricolae (talk) 02:13, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following pages, equally non-notable genealogy. Agricolae (talk) 02:19, 15 February 2018 (UTC)








 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Agricolae (talk) 02:19, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Agricolae (talk) 02:19, 15 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment. The nominator makes the valid point that there is nor a single source to indicate that the person actually existed. However, if existence can be proven there may be a case for an article or family history appropriate to support the reader's understanding of a notable topic, which would be the sixth baron. Also, the recorded existence of a person so early in European history may be of interest of itself. However, a redirect may also be appropriate. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:24, 15 February 2018 (UTC).
 * I am not questioning that the individual existed. 'Existence' is insufficient for notability. Likewise, notability is WP:NOTINHERITED - we don't create a separate page to help people understand the subject's notable children, let alone their great-great-great-great-great-great-grandson, as your argument would suggest. Agricolae (talk) 04:58, 15 February 2018 (UTC)


 * delete all What did these guys do for us to care about them? Well, they had kids, and their kids had kids, and eventually one of those kids was the Byron about which we can say something— that is, the one who is notable in his own right for his own doings. The rest of these are just spots on the Byron lineage, and these articles say almost nothing about them that isn't already in the main Byron family article. Mangoe (talk) 14:51, 15 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Redirect all to Byron family per nominator. There appear to be a couple of John de Byrons who were knighted for services at Calais, Bosworth and later who might be independently notable but the John de Byron included in this nomination appears to be earlier. Redirects are cheap and the names do pop up in all the genealogies and are plausible search terms. 24.151.116.12 (talk) 16:58, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Re: the 'other' John Byrons, one or two were MPs and one that wasn't was a KG, which is more than just a run-of-the-mill knight. There are some of the later ones that as they currently stand lack an appropriate claim to notability, but they are longstanding articles that have references (though not necessarily reliable ones).  I limited this proposal to the newly created ones that have no claim to notability, no references, and little likelihood of improvement given the track record of the creator. Agricolae (talk) 00:38, 16 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete. Unsourced and no evidence of notability. The suggestion of redirecting to Byron family makes little sense, because that article is totally unsourced, and the only content in that article which refers to the subjects of the articles under consideration for deletion is links to those articles and trivial details such as the dates of their lives and the names of their wives. That means that there is no sourced information at all about these people in that article, and there can be no justification for redirecting there, especially as the trivial mentions being unsourced are liable to removal at any time, which would leave redirects to an article not mentioning the subjects of the redirects at all. (Incidentally, the article Byron family was created by the same editor who created the articles under discussion here.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:39, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete besides being unsourced, the articles make not even something that amounts to a claim of notability. Wikipedia is not a geneological database.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:38, 21 February 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.