Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sir Edwyn Wren Hoskyns, 17th 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. -- Cirt (talk) 15:00, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Sir Edwyn Wren Hoskyns, 17th Baronet

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Page apparently primarily created because this person a member of a notable family. On such basis alone not notable alone as notability is non inherited. After being tagged, the article author has added some further claims of notability, such as that he is "regularly cited and acknowledged by other published researchers in the field of childhood diseases". However neither does Google turn up much beyond directories and genealogy related pages nor does a Google book search turn up much. Also NB the the title "Sir" is based upon the article authors perceptions of style and is not a title bestowed, nor is this person listed as "Sir" in any non-genealogy related sourced. Travelbird (talk) 14:36, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


 * User:Travelbird has seemingly no concept of the style (manner of address) used for a Baronet, which is "Sir", and has not researched it or the statement above would not have been made. While we're at it, let's search for the man using his professional name and field of work (medical, paediatrics, etc), noting that there were several other people and previous family members using that name.
 * So, I think that he is notable, including being notable among the other notable people in his notable family, so I hastened to add the material that I knew was out there in order to (hopefully) substantiate the notability of this person and the entry.- Peter Ellis - Talk 15:01, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment I am aware of British style, however I do have to note that none of the sources you gave actually lists hims as "Sir". So it remains highly questionable whether assertion that he should be referred to as such is even shared by the person in question.
 * Being a member of a notable family is not sufficient for inclusion. Notability is not contagious nor is it inherited. Just because you are the son/father/wife/friend of a notable person does not mean that you yourself are notable.
 * At the moment the only thing that could possibly get him past WP:ACADEMIC is criteria #3 ("Fellow of a major scholarly society"), which the article claims he is ("Fellow (FRCP) of the Royal College of Physicians"). However for that to stand we would need a) a reliable reference that this is actually the case (the current link to a genealogy site is not a reliable ref) and b) establish "that is a highly selective honor". Travelbird (talk) 15:22, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Being a member of a notable family is not sufficient for inclusion. Notability is not contagious nor is it inherited. Just because you are the son/father/wife/friend of a notable person does not mean that you yourself are notable.
 * At the moment the only thing that could possibly get him past WP:ACADEMIC is criteria #3 ("Fellow of a major scholarly society"), which the article claims he is ("Fellow (FRCP) of the Royal College of Physicians"). However for that to stand we would need a) a reliable reference that this is actually the case (the current link to a genealogy site is not a reliable ref) and b) establish "that is a highly selective honor". Travelbird (talk) 15:22, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  -- -- Cirt (talk) 16:48, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. He is listed in the current Who's Who, which confirms his two fellowships (FRCPCH 1996; FRCP 1997). Appears from Google Scholar that his work is sufficiently widely cited (I searched for 'EW Hoskyns').--Michig (talk) 18:24, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. GS shows impact as a scholar which adds to general notability claims. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:57, 2 February 2011 (UTC).
 * Keep. Anyone listed in Who's Who is notable. As a baronet, he is Sir... --Toddy1 (talk) 18:56, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. According to past precedent here, baronets are not per se notable, unlike, say royalty or members of the House of Lords. However, the other evidence, such as Who's Who, the reliable sources, and his academic achievements indicate that he easily passes general notability. Bearian (talk) 00:50, 4 February 2011 (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.