Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sir Anthony Bailey


 * 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 wrong venue. This is a redirect and RfD needs to handle it. Mackensen (talk) 01:18, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Sir Anthony Bailey

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The article's subject has a knighthood conferred by Antigua, but a notice in the London Gazette, (and authorized by the Foreign Office and the College of Arms), sparked by the subject's use of this nomenclature, specifically prohibits the use of the title 'Sir' in the United Kingdom for those with such knighthoods. (See here). This has led to the change of name of the main article from 'Sir Anthony Bailey' to Anthony Bailey (campaigner). More about this situation can be read in the article. The present Sir Anthony Bailey remains as a redirect - but in these circumstances, given the London Gazette notice and per WP:NCNOB / WP:OBE,("Honorary knights ... are not called Sir") we should not retain article titles which contain invalid honours and risk misleading by naming the person concerned as 'Sir'.

I am also adding for deletion the following related page (also a redirect page) for the same reasons

Smerus (talk) 19:54, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Is he entitled to use the title "Sir" in Antigua? Opera hat (talk) 11:49, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
 * His knighthood is 'under review' in Antigua (see here); I can't find any other information relating to your question.Smerus (talk) 12:06, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment if the nominator is proposing that the redirects Sir Anthony Bailey (campaigner) and Sir Anthony Bailey should be deleted (and I would agree), then WP:RFD is the place to go. If, in addition, it is proposed that Anthony Bailey (campaigner) should be deleted then a case is needed for this and the article should be tagged for deletion. At present the article looks OK to me. Thincat (talk) 13:04, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for this advice. I've looked at WP:RFD, but it doesn't seem to provide for this situation - WP:RFD lists conditions for delete, but none of them seem to me to apply here - I would be grateful for views on this. I don't presently have a view on the article Anthony Bailey (campaigner), save that it could be improved.--Smerus (talk) 14:12, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I think normally these redirects would not qualify for deletion. Although "Sir" is not included in article titles (WP:CREDENTIAL), a redirect including it seems generally regarded as harmless (Sir David Attenborough). In this very unusual case WP:RFD or WP:RFD (or even WP:CSD} might well be well argued to apply although (ironically) Sir Anthony Bailey might be kept as a likely search term because of the fuss about the matter. Thincat (talk) 08:48, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:34, 25 June 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Oppose. He is not entitled to call himself Sir in the UK, but he may be so entitled in Antigua and Barbuda. Even if he isn't entitled there either, there are numerous other redirects for honorary knights who are not legally Sirs, such as Sir Bob Geldof and Sir Basil Zaharoff. Opera hat (talk) 13:07, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:15, 3 July 2016 (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.