Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sir Donough O'Brien, 1st Baronet


 * 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. Staxringold talkcontribs 01:04, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Sir Donough O'Brien, 1st Baronet
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

User creating huge number of unreferenced stubs. No references to establish notability and Baronets are not automatically notable. &lt;&gt;Multi-Xfer&lt;&gt; (talk) 01:50, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Wikipedia has many articles containing nobility characters. This person should be no exception. First hit on yahoo on this person's name prooves his existence and noble relations.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by DragonFly31 (talk • contribs) 09:20, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - Just being nobility isn't enough to be notable. As the nominator said, Baronets are not automatically notable. &mdash; DroEsperanto (talk) 11:43, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - first few ghits seemed to be clan cite or things like geocities. Family or related/POV cites can document their own opinions or add detail but they can't establish independent notability. I've been a big defender of the obscure as an encyclopedia should include more than common knowledge but maybe not trivia. But, you'd have to ask what independent notice of him was there that makes the other details interesting to a reader? Notability is not inherited and not every person who exists would form the basis of a more general article- do you want to have my bio come up everytime you type words into google that happen to relate to something I did? Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 12:14, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. As a baronet, he would not have had a seat in the House of Lords like peers and he seemed to do little of notability based on the sources.  young  american  (wtf?) 12:31, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Switch to Keep per User:Phoe's edit that show that he was a member of the Irish House of Commons. With this in mind, he now obviously passes WP:POLITICIAN.  young  american  (wtf?) 18:40, 28 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Per Youngamerican.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs  22:27, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete unless someone can find a reliable source which asserts notability. Majoreditor (talk) 22:56, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Switch to Keep due to MP status. Please work to expand the article. Majoreditor (talk) 03:44, 29 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Week Keep and work harder to expand beyond birth, marriage and death. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:47, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as member of the Irish Parliament and per WP:Politician Phoe   talk   11:53, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - a member of the Irish House of Commons, and also someone who was created a baronet. The article is terrible right now, but with decent sources (Complete Baronetage?) might be improved. john k (talk) 17:16, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep -- Being an Irish MP makes him notable. People do not get created baronet without doing something notable.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:30, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: Erm generally yes, however there were the famous exceptions to the rule. Especially Charles II used baronetcies for money raising ... the usual fee was 1095 £ (Charles II even granted people the right to sell a patent for a baronetcy). It was the medieval version of Cash for Honours. Phoe   talk   19:44, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Except that Charles II didn't live in medieval times :)   Majoreditor (talk) 21:08, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It was before the Internet caught on: doesn't that make it mediaeval, or is the right word "prehistoric"? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:23, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep MP. Falcon8765 (talk) 16:45, 30 August 2009 (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.