Talk:William Brandon (died 1491)
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
Notability?[edit]
Being a member of a group does not confer inherent notability. More importantly, there are issues of weight. This article gives 28 characters relating to the supposed basis for notability, out of a total of 2839 characters. It makes it look like the supposed notability conferred by being Marshal is just being used as an excuse for presenting genealogy. Agricolae (talk) 18:06, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
- He is not a member of a group, he is the holder of an office. No, the lack of information should not be used as an excuse for not presenting genealogy. And what do you call excessive and trivial genealogy? Simple names of parents, children, wives and former spouses? It's hardly extensive. If there were many children and wives it's not my fault, they didn't know 500 years later someone would be on wikipedia wishing they had less children and wives to make a more petite article... Konakonian (talk) 18:31, 17 December 2010 (UTC) Come on, be reasonable, the elements, specifically marked as being family, are not even massive. Don't take this personally nor anything. I tried my best to comply to what was reasonable. Konakonian (talk) 18:53, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
- He is a member of a group - Marshals of Marshalsea. It is explicitly stated as WP policy that "all X (in this case Marshals of Marshalsea) are inherently notable" is not a valid argument. Anyhow, if this man is notable for a given reason, the article should do better at addressing the basis for that notability, rather than that notability being used as justification for what is nothing but a genealogical article. Don't get me wrong, I have already suggested that a good case could be made for this man being notable, but "he was Marshall of Marshalsea so he deserves a page" is not that good case. "He was born, he died, he had these children, the children married these people, oh, and by the way he was Marshal of Marshalsea." That is a genealogical article with a Marshaldom being used to justify its existence, not an article about a Marshal of Marshalsea. If that is the basis for his notability, when was he appointed? For how long did he serve? etc. How about his service in Parliament? or as Marshal of the King's Bench? As it is now, this article is about a genealogical placeholder who happened to hold an office, not about an officeholder who happened to have a family. Agricolae (talk) 19:13, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
- You're distorting things, you're simply basing on the size and proportion of the text instead of basing on the office and on the reasonability of the genealogical part separately, and using the small biography as an excuse to exclude the family. I've tried to find sources on-line for his office and others, but regretably I came up with nothing. Konakonian (talk) 19:17, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
- Which could be taken to mean he lacks sufficient coverage to be notable. If being Marshal of Marshalsea was of sufficient importance to make him notable, you would think someone would have mentioned it. On WP, notability is based on coverage in secondary sources, and you have just said you didn't find anything significant. Agricolae (talk) 19:21, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
- On-line, only. Konakonian (talk) 11:38, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
- So you have found some that are not online? Agricolae (talk) 20:04, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
- Regretably, no. But on line I've found this http://www.hrionline.ac.uk/strype/TransformServlet?page=book4_019 http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=65441 and three references on googlebooks: A Survey of London by John Stow, Henry Morley - 2007, London: being an accurate history and description of the British metropolis and its neighbourhood to thirt miles extent, from an actual perambulation by David Hughson - 1807, The history and antiquities of London, Westminster, Southwark, and parts adjacent by Thomas Allen - 1839 - London (England). Apparently the senior William Brandon survived his son and was Marshal of Marshalsea after his son's death. There was even a prison break during his tenure... It's something!... Thank God for googlebooks! Konakonian (talk) 14:47, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
- So you have found some that are not online? Agricolae (talk) 20:04, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
- On-line, only. Konakonian (talk) 11:38, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
- Which could be taken to mean he lacks sufficient coverage to be notable. If being Marshal of Marshalsea was of sufficient importance to make him notable, you would think someone would have mentioned it. On WP, notability is based on coverage in secondary sources, and you have just said you didn't find anything significant. Agricolae (talk) 19:21, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
- You're distorting things, you're simply basing on the size and proportion of the text instead of basing on the office and on the reasonability of the genealogical part separately, and using the small biography as an excuse to exclude the family. I've tried to find sources on-line for his office and others, but regretably I came up with nothing. Konakonian (talk) 19:17, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
- He is a member of a group - Marshals of Marshalsea. It is explicitly stated as WP policy that "all X (in this case Marshals of Marshalsea) are inherently notable" is not a valid argument. Anyhow, if this man is notable for a given reason, the article should do better at addressing the basis for that notability, rather than that notability being used as justification for what is nothing but a genealogical article. Don't get me wrong, I have already suggested that a good case could be made for this man being notable, but "he was Marshall of Marshalsea so he deserves a page" is not that good case. "He was born, he died, he had these children, the children married these people, oh, and by the way he was Marshal of Marshalsea." That is a genealogical article with a Marshaldom being used to justify its existence, not an article about a Marshal of Marshalsea. If that is the basis for his notability, when was he appointed? For how long did he serve? etc. How about his service in Parliament? or as Marshal of the King's Bench? As it is now, this article is about a genealogical placeholder who happened to hold an office, not about an officeholder who happened to have a family. Agricolae (talk) 19:13, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
After seven years, despite Agricolae's reasonable requests, not only has nobody attempted to add any biography demonstrating Brandon's notability but reams more irrelevant genealogical gash has been added, some of it by known suspects. I intend to scrap most of the article and write a brief account of his origins and career. Clifford Mill (talk) 13:37, 8 January 2018 (UTC)