Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sir Richard Byron, died 1398


 * 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. -- Cirt (talk) 01:23, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Sir Richard Byron, died 1398

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Ignoring the fact that the article name is inappropriate. There is very little to go on this as an article. Notability seems to be because he was an ancestor of Lord Byron. I know if we came across an individual with the title sir in his name today he would be considered notable but this chap seems to be one of many sirs from the 1300s and potentially a minor character of the day except on a local level. Wikipedia is not the place to construct separate articles for every individual in someones family tree. Polargeo (talk) 09:24, 23 April 2010 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages for similar reasons of lack of notability for a separate article:


 * Delete all. Being "Sir"ly even today doesn't confer automatic notability. None of these people have any claim other than being related to Lord Byron. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:17, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete "Most of the notability of this bunch of characters depends entirely on their eventual descendant THE Lord B. Insanity can be inherited from one's kids, but can notability over so many generations? The Lords Byron were a fairly notable bunch (including one known as 'Mad Jack'...) The John article is taken from the Yorkshire Arch. text cited - but the Google version is scanned badly. I have traced John to the mid 1300s - with no great show of anything other than existence." "So far as I am aware, the 'Lord' is not a peerage title, but merely the lordship of the manor of Rochdale - a transferable or saleable thing. When you find English 'titles' for sale, this is what they are. Nowadays, they are just a paper exercise. See Viscount Rochdale for the modern peerage Rochdale title. No dates are given, making the article somewhat problematical in terms of usefulness. A Sir John whose title was "Baron Byron of Rochdale" was the ancestor the later infamous Lord Byron, This Sir John Byron was created Baron Byron of Rochdale and did not inherit his title - and was not de Byron." Extracted from messages from me to Polargeo. I doubt that anyone wanting information on this group of Byrons would be looking to Wikipedia for it. Peridon (talk) 12:08, 27 April 2010 (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.