Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anthony Irby (1577–1610)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 merge to Anthony Irby (died 1625). Barkeep49 (talk) 01:30, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Irby (1577–1610)[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Anthony Irby (1577–1610) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:BIO. The article first claims he was a politician, then acknowledges the Member of Parliament was probably his father. There are no other claims to notability. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:16, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 04:57, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 04:57, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Simple knighthood is not sufficient. Your link, such as it is, supports CBEs, hardly the same thing. If there are sources for his "MPship", then that would be enough to save him. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:45, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Knighthood most certainly does meet WP:ANYBIO #1. My list cited above (which, despite attempts to rubbish it by bitter deletionists who don't want to acknowledge the consensus, is a full list of relevant discussions and not in any way cherry-picked) is not just about CBEs - please actually read it before commenting. But given knighthood is above a CBE, if a CBE is notable then a knighthood clearly counts as "a well-known and significant award or honor". I'm astonished that anyone would think otherwise. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:16, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • A knighthood is above a CBE?[citation needed] AFAIK, knights, especially from that time period, are a dime a dozen. I have yet to see an Afd where being a knight was a winning argument. Clarityfiend (talk) 18:19, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Try, e.g., this one; there are numerous others in the list (marked with "Kt"). (Knights are higher than CBEs, as this article explains.) But regardless, I really find it difficult to maintain that a knighthood is neither "well-known" or "significant". Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:26, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, those examples are about knighthoods now. Does ANYBIO #1 apply to knighthoods back then, when they were (mostly?) hereditary? Clarityfiend (talk) 21:07, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Knighthoods were never hereditary. It was indeed common in the Middle Ages, when knighthood generally went with military service, for many (or most) male members of a military family to be knighted, but it was not actually hereditary. And by the 16th century it was no longer the case that knighthood went with military service in any case. Knighthood by then, as it still is now, was for distinguished service and was not just awarded to a young man who had fought for the king. Note that, although he was apparently knighted at the age of 26, this man's father was not knighted! -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:05, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • A knighthood is above a CBE?[citation needed] I'm afraid you really are showing your ignorance here! Yes, any knighthood is most certainly above a CBE in the order of precedence! Maybe understand the subject before making yourself look a bit silly in a debate? Just a bit of friendly advice. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:46, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Knighthood meets WP:ANYBIO #1.4meter4 (talk) 03:41, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I disagree that "Knighthood meets WP:ANYBIO #1". Those making this argument don't explain why knighthood is a "well-known and significant award or honor*. My understanding is that British knighthoods are basically given out like candy to rich donors or the period equivalent. Being rich or influential enough to get a knighthood doesn't establish notability. Proper sourcing does. Sandstein 07:12, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your understanding is, I'm afraid, utterly and completely wrong. As I said above, I would always suggest knowledge of a subject is useful before commenting on it. You don't think knighthood is a "well-known and significant award or honor"? Something that forever gives the recipient a title for the rest of their life? What exactly do you think does meet that criterion then? Or maybe you just don't agree with ANYBIO #1, which is a different issue. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:02, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments: While arguing the significance of the title we are sort of side-stepping the genealogical aspect as three of the six sources use the word. I would have to agree that the likely The Most Noble Order of the Garter (possibly but not sure) is one of the highest but is that one thing (being an investor is not a criterion) enough or even really being rich enough to have a lavish grave? The "Tomb of Sir Anthony Irby" might artistically be more notable. Maybe there should be a list of barely notable knights. -- Otr500 (talk) 14:51, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to the page on his father - I cannot confirm he served as an MP and this is probably confusion with his father, who was, and who has a lot written on him. I just think we're a little short of having enough for an encyclopaedia article, especially given the confusion as to which Anthony Irby's being discussed in the sources. SportingFlyer T·C 15:42, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per SportingFlyer. Given the confusion about who did what, this is an excellent solution. --Randykitty (talk) 13:23, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I must say that I do find it very odd that he seems a lot less notable than his father and yet he was knighted at the age of 26 and his father never was. I wonder if he performed some service for the king that is not recorded in any sources anyone has yet found. I also can't help wondering whether he really ever was knighted and a mistake was made on his tomb. Maybe it was actually his father who was knighted and the two were confused. Mind you, his own son seems to have been knighted at the age of 19! Very odd. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:37, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Anthony_Irby_(1577–1610)&oldid=1030966788"