Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dermod O'Brien, 5th Baron Inchiquin

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. Discussion on the talk page is free to lead to a redirect into a parent article if that is desired. NW (Talk) 03:28, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dermod O'Brien, 5th Baron Inchiquin

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:BIO. Ironholds (talk) 11:41, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. His peerage would have made him a member of the Irish House of Lords and he would thereby pass WP:POLITICIAN as a member of a national legislature. youngamerican (wtf?) 12:28, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Baron Inchiquin is one of the older titles in the Peerage of Ireland. The Peerage of Ireland is the term used for those peers created by British monarchs in their capacity as Lord or King of Ireland. As such Mr. O'Brien imeets Wikipedia notability standards. Thanks ShoesssS ^Talk 14:30, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Doubtful leaning to delete. Public source don't provide any clue as to why this distinguished bloodsucker is (present tense) notable; his son had a say in history, but, alas, all I can find on the fifth baron is that he fathered the sixth one. Is there any sign that he might be notable, say, perhaps he invented gunpowder or turned water into wine? If not, one unlinked line in Baron Inchiquin will do just fine. NVO (talk) 18:25, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The sign that you seek is that he would have been a member of the Irish House of Lords, the upper house of a national legislature. As I read WP:POLITICIAN, no-name back-benchers pass WP:N no matter when they were in office or whether or not they made it in via daddy's money (today) or daddy's title (peerages of yesteryear). youngamerican (wtf?) 18:47, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why a separate stub? If there is no more to be said, why not just put this (minimal) information into the entry in Baron Inchiquin? Aymatth2 (talk) 19:15, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but what did he do other than being catalogued in the list of peerage? This alone does not make him any more notable than any of his peasants whose existence is just as well attested through church records. Yes, I know, some folks assume that some stud books confer divine notability... the whole story reminds me of the King's advice to one title seeker: 'That's right, Mr. Lyndon, raise another company; and go with them, too!' :)) had the subject been "with the companies", ever ? NVO (talk) 20:27, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a member of the Irish parliament, which did exist at the time. Historical figures of this sort are notable. DGG ( talk ) 06:18, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - passes WP:POLITICIAN and there's no reason to think that this is all there is to say about him. Someone should go to a library and check out what Complete Peerage has to say, for example. john k (talk) 17:14, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Probably no point arguing it, but I don't see the point of an article in the Encyclopedia that gives virtually no information and could easily be redirected to a parent article that gives the same information, plus context. What is the value of a separate entry? How does it help our readers? Make a separate entry when there is some content to put in it. (I am not impressed by the Complete Peerage. I come from an ancient family with unbroken descent on both sides for hundreds of thousands of years, perhaps more. There are just some gaps in the record in my family's case.) Aymatth2 (talk) 01:30, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And the sons of Eliphaz were Teman, Omar, Zepho, and Gatam, and Kenaz. (Genesis 36.11). Any volunteers to make articles for each of them? Think they meet the same notability criteria as this one. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:52, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The notability criteria in question here is WP:POLITICIAN. Granted, I haven't checked out the OT in a while, but were they members of an Edomite parliament? There may be a criteria for including or excluding those people, but it probably wouldn't have anything to do with how we would judge O'Brien's article. youngamerican (wtf?) 11:40, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They were dukes, members of the Edomite ruling family. Eliphaz was the first-born son of Esau, brother of Jacob. Their half-brother was Amalek, who was notable, but very little is known of these dukes. In the Irish and English systems membership of the House of Lords was hereditary, and gave certain powers to propose or approve laws and taxes. The same presumably applied to the Edomite dukes. I don't see either as "politicians" in the democratic sense, more as members of a hereditary junta, but maybe that is enough to pass WP:POLITICIAN. Technically, perhaps both Dermod O'Brien and duke Teman of Edom qualify for their own article. But very little is known of them apart from their parents, wife and children - they are just entries in genealogical tables. Ireland and Edom are small countries. If we included all the entries in all the recorded aristocratic genealogies of all the countries of the world, there would be hundreds of thousands of articles, very few of which would give more than parentage and offspring. I dislike extremely short articles, because I think they are annoying to our readers. Better to redirect the title into an article that covers the dynasty, and gives the known information about each member of the dynasty, with individual articles only where there is non-trivial content. That way the reader gets the same information, but also sees the context. This is more courteous to the reader than taking them to a point-form article, from which they have to navigate to find the context. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:50, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, I learn something new on here each day. Also, I can sympathize with the frustration you feel towards short articles. There have been many times when I have clicked on a stub and thought "well, there goes 8 seconds of my life." That said, if the subject of a stub (in this case, O'Brien) passes a criteria for inclusion (WP:POLITICIAN), being a stub should not be a reason for deletion or even merging. Just because we cannot readily find sources to enhance the article, that does not mean that such sources aren't sitting on a library shelf somewhere in the British Isles waiting to be found by a future Wikipedian. youngamerican (wtf?) 14:03, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lord Inchiquin was a real person, who actually lived; the Edomite rulers are names in a work written centuries after they supposedly live, for whom there is no independent evidence. Furthermore, you are simply assuming that there is no other information available about Inchiquin - this is not necessarily true at all. As I've said before, Complete Peerage is sitting around at any good research library and probably has some information. And nineteenth century local histories of County Clare are also likely to contain information. Basically - there is almost certainly considerably more information available about the fifth Baron Inchiquin than is apparent from the article now. john k (talk) 03:06, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would not recommend deleting the entry, just redirecting it. It is quite possible that some future editor will find interesting information about this person in a dusty family history. If they find no entry for him in Wikipedia, start the article, then when they go to save get a forbidding warning that Wikipedia has decided he is not a worthy topic, they may be discouraged and give up - not a good outcome. But if they find there is an entry, but it redirects, they are can simply expand it into a full article, which would be good. But until that happens, and it may never happen, it seems better to redirect than leave a trivial article. Aymatth2 (talk) 15:15, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That seems to be where we disagree. If the subject of an article is inherently notable, then an article being a stub is alone not enough to merit converting said stub to a redirect. It would, IMO, be easier for a potential writer on this topic to figure out how to expand a stub rather than a redirect, especially if they are new to the project. For me, notable = keep, even as a stub. youngamerican (wtf?) 16:19, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a stub. It's nothing, really. There's not enough info even for basic categorization (was he a politician? military? poker player? nope, silence). Hell, if defenders of automatic notability really think it should stay they'd rather add some categories. Nope, no one cares. Good bye, fifth baron, the family article is a better place. NVO (talk) 17:15, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Categories and a stub template, along with one reference, have now been added. Still needs plenty of work (and I doubt it'll change your opinion), but at least someone "cares." youngamerican (wtf?) 18:53, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He was an aristocratic landowner. john k (talk) 03:06, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have difficulty with the concept of "inherently notable". To me, if there is nothing much to be said about a subject, no sources with any depth of coverage, it should not have a separate article. The guideline says "A person is generally notable if they meet any of the following standards ... meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." This is sort of ambiguous, leaving room for common sense. I suppose it is mostly a question of taste - lots of little articles versus fewer, larger ones. Hard to feel passionate about it. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:43, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Almost certainly there is more to say about him, though.

Redirect to Early Barons Inchiquin#Dermod O'Brien, 5th Baron Inchiquin, a page I just created and am using to sort out and record the facts. The articles on the Barons Inchiquin 2-5 are inaccurate excerpts from thePeerage.com, which in turn seems a dubious source. For example, the article on Murrough McDermot O'Brien, 3rd Baron Inchiquin says he was the son of Margareth Cussack, while thePeerage.com says he married Margaret Cusack. but was the son of Margaret O'Brien, his father's wife. The article on the 5th Baron (this one) says he was son of Mabel Nugent, but according to another source, which may be more accurate, Mabel Nugent was his grandmother. This set of trivial articles is, to put in politely, garbage. Aymatth2 (talk) 02:45, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously inaccurate information should be removed - that Library of Ireland material cites its source, and seems probably more reliable for the genealogy. It's worth noting, though, that the current articles can be garbage without that meaning the individual is not notable. As I've said a few times now, Complete Peerage certainly has an entry on each of the Barons Inchiquin, and there's almost certainly other sources that discuss them, as well. john k (talk) 03:06, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If I stay interested in these O'Briens, which I probably will, I will update Early Barons Inchiquin with accurate information, and remove inaccurate information from the stubs. I leave it to another editor to duplicate the sections in the parent article into the stubs. This is not a question of notability but of organization. I see no value in separate articles when sections in the parent article are sufficient. Aymatth2 (talk) 03:40, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
After digging a bit, I would say that Cokayne's Complete Peerage, the source for thepeerage.com is more accurate than O'Hart's Irish Pedigrees, the source for Library Ireland, but both are incomplete. The stub inaccurately transcribed from thepeerage.com, making the 5th Baron's wife the mother of his illegitimate daughter Honora. I have taken that out. The problem with these trivial and unsourced point-form articles is that errors and inconsistencies like Margaret Cusack the wife/mother of the 3rd Baron do not stand out since there is no context. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:58, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep needs some expansion but is certainly notable in regards to the points raised above with WP:POLITICIAN. Around 100 results on Google Book Search. During his lifetime he was the head of perhaps the most famous Irish royal dynasty. Unfortunately nowadays because of "democracy"/communism noble titles aren't as significant today, but a baron would be obviously a notable figure during his time. - Yorkshirian (talk)

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.