Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abraham Jennison


 * 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   no consensus. The arguments seemed to have centered on whether or not this person meets notability guidelines, mainly WP:BIO and related guidelines; neither side came out on top here. Note that this does not preclude any future merger discussions, which can be done locally on the involved articles' talk pages. –MuZemike 22:12, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Abraham Jennison

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Fails WP:BIO. Person is mentioned in one book because one of his letters survived. "Letters which convicts wrote to their families in England were rarely preserved, but two are quoted here as examples of the messages that they sent. The first was from Abraham Jennison, a forty-four year old blacksmith[...]" being mentioned in one book as an example, and not being noted in any other reliable source, nor having any indication as to why this person should be notable, is a clear sign of failing WP:BIO. Fram (talk) 12:27, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. Fram thinks Jennison not worth writing about. Respected historian Rica Erickson thought otherwise. And she did write about him; she didn't just mention him as an example, notwithstanding Fram's misinterpretation of a couple of Google Books snippets. Sorry, but it's Erickson's opinion that matters here, not Fram's. Per WP:BIO, "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." This one's a keeper. Hesperian 12:41, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't state that he wasn't worth writing about. As an example, he is obviously worth writing about in a book about a subject he is an example of. An example, however, means that he isn't notable, but that he has been picked more or less randomly. It's like a newspaper that gives short bio's of some victims of some disaster, to make it more "real", more personal. The randomly chosen example victims aren't notable by being presented in a newspaper article, the disaster is, they are just examples. However, that doesn't mean that they aren't worth writing about, only that they aren't notable enough for an encyclopedia article. The fact that not a single other reliable source has written about Jennison is a clar indication that he was used as an example, not as a notable convict or migrant. Fram (talk) 13:00, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Per WP:BIO, "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." It doesn't say anything about being the subject of enough published secondary source material to satisfy Fram. It just says that he has to be the subject of published secondary source material. Well, he is. And all this guff about him being nothing more than a passing example to Erickson is a myth, built on Fram's personal interpretation of the few tiny snippets of the source that s/he could get out of Google Books. The fact is, Erickson doesn't just use him as a passing example; she discusses him, and gives his biography. Hesperian 13:11, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Could you then perhaps enlighten us why he is discussed, if not as an example? What sets him apart? Has he received media attention during his life or at the time of his death? Has his extensive correspondence or other writings been published? Has he done anything that would give Erickson reason to give him extra attention as something else than an example? And if so, why has not one single reliable source spent even a second of their time on him? Fram (talk) 13:25, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The book is a collection of biographies of convicts. Some convicts get an entire chapter. Others get a paragraph. Jennison got a few pages. The "example" text you're making so much of is a lead-in into a full biographical treatment. Who are you to second-guess Erickson's reasons for doing so? She did. And I don't know where you got the idea that there are no other sources that mention him. That's an utter fabrication. He also has an entry in The Dictionary of Western Australians 1829-1914 2: Bond 1850-1868. Hesperian 23:49, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Which was written by the same author as the other source, so doesn't count... Fram (talk) 06:56, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * refer to WP:AUTHOR oh hang on that would be to simple. pt 1 Person is regarded as an important person, has created a major significant work(the letter is that) and the work is in the perminent collect of a museum oh its that too. Gnangarra 04:55, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The single letter is far from significant. ARTHOR can't apply here. --M ASEM (t) 05:03, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * In who's opinion, yours, User:Fram's? well according to the historian Rica Erickson its significant as letters from convicts were rarely preserved. Gnangarra 05:30, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Significant for WP means wide coverage, not one person claiming something is notable. This is why the GNG is usually about multiple sources, and what, particularly for a BIO1E, we need more sources to justify. --M ASEM (t) 05:36, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Please drop the dismissive tone because it's not as simple as you state. As it falls under the sub-heading of "creative professionals", it's not clear that "author" in the context of WP:AUTHOR was intended to refer to the subject of the Afd. Location (talk) 06:53, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Question How substantial is the coverage on him in Jennisons book exactly? Are we talking a single page, a few pages or and an entire chapter? Yoenit (talk) 13:22, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * A few pages. Hesperian 23:38, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - it is interesting that in the most obvious Australian location to check this issue is the National Library Trove database (google does not reach into Australian libraries, yet - and the (Find sources: "Abraham Jennison" – news · books · scholar · images) at the top of this afd is the inherently a classic case of american exceptionalism which wikipedia could do without) - and when entering the name of the individual - http://trove.nla.gov.au/work/21416223?q=Abraham+jennison&c=book - there is an obvious context to the range of individuals who are covered by (a) Erickson, Rica, (1983) The Brand on his coat : biographies of some Western Australian convicts. University of Western Australia Press, Nedlands, W.A. ISBN 0855642238 (pbk) and if one reads carefully there - Wikipedia: Read associated articles: Abraham Jennison, Alfred Chopin, Convict era of Western Australia, etc - so what we have is the process by which Trove/NLA - consider such items related to the book by Erickson as notable - I for one would consider that to take any one article listed there by the trove capture process - and single it out for any particular reason would be missing the point -  the trove entry suggests that the collection of articles at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Convicts_transported_to_Western_Australia  are all valid records of individuals that either Erickson or other researchers consider adequately or inherently notable in the era that they existed.  SatuSuro 14:03, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't anything of your reasoning. Trove takes the book by Erickson, the sole source we have for this article, and looks at Wikipedia to see where this book is used as a source: every article that lists thios book is then automatically mentioned in the article. How does any of this give any extra notability beyond the Erickson book itself? You may agree with Hesperian that the Erickson book is sufficient, fine: but the whole argument tyou are building here is that because a search engine from the NLA links the books in the NLA to Wikipedia articles that source that book, the book (no, the subjects in the book!) somehow become more notable? This is a very peculiar circular reasoning... Fram (talk) 14:17, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per Basic criteria at Notability (people). I don't understand why this is even being discussed.  –Moondyne 14:31, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * For one thing, because, despite how it is written in the text, WP:BIO is often understood to require mulitple sources, as do all the notability guidelines. You can see this at WP:N, with things like "Multiple sources are generally expected". Here, we have only one source, with not even passing mentions in other sources, indicating that the person is not notable but just an example. Fram (talk) 14:43, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Jennison also has an entry in The Dictionary of Western Australians 1829-1914 2: Bond 1850-1868. Fram's claim that "not a single other source about this person exists" is another myth. Hesperian 23:49, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Which was written by the same author as the other source, so doesn't count... WP:N: "Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability". Apart from that, this is a genealogical telephone book, an attempt to list everyone who lived there in that time period. So, I repeat, there is not a single reliable independent source about Jennison, establishing that he is indeed notable, apart from the Erickson one. Fram (talk) 06:56, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge to Convict era of Western Australia for several reasons:
 * The person doesn't meet WP:GNG notability clearly (no significant coverage in multiple sources).
 * Of course, there's WP:BIO, but here the only criteria Jennison could meet is #1 of WP:BASIC. But I stress: A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. As best as I can tell from the book, the book is not about Jennison, but only includes him as one example of a convict. That is not being "the subject of" the work.
 * The claim to fame seems to be the letter itself. This almost screams WP:BIO1E, and suggests that a better place for this information is at Convict era of Western Australia as an example of a convict from that era. -- User:Masem 15:28, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Jennison is not the subject of the source; he is an example of the subject. I understand the argument being made for Jennison being the subject, or one of the subjects, therefore fulfilling a loose interpretation of the guideline...but even if you convinced me to change my mind on that argument, it still just barely might pass the very basic requirements for notability; and I just don't think there is enough here to warrant a stand alone article.  Needs at least another good source. The Eskimo (talk) 15:59, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The book is a collection of biographies of convicts. Some convicts get an entire chapter. Others get a paragraph. Jennison got a few pages. For those few pages, Jennison is most certainly "the subject of published secondary source material with is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." You might feel that a few pages isn't enough, but don't be mislead by the fact that Erickson led into Jennison's biography by referring to him as an example of something. That's a mere literary device, and cannot be construed as reducing all this biographical coverage to the status of a passing reference. Hesperian 23:56, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge per Masons argument. The wording of WP:BIO aside, I do not think this guy is truly notable and needs a separate article. His use as an example at Convict era of Western Australia seems an excellent idea Yoenit (talk) 16:13, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge Clearly a case of WP:BIO1E. Also WP:BIO is indendent to be a short cut for when additional secondary sources can be assumed to exist.  It does in no way imply that multiple sources is not needed, rather it lists several cases where one can usually presume that those sources exist.  Because Person uses Jennison as an example of a broader subject, and that inclusion is rather arbitrary, we can not in this case assume that other sources exists.  Hence Jennison does not meet our notability criteria, and should not be treated in a seperate article.  Taemyr (talk) 21:01, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * But other sources do exist. Hesperian 00:37, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * No, they don't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fram (talk • contribs) 06:56, 30 September 2010
 * Keep and rename as per WP:BIO1E - "The general rule in many cases is to cover the event, not the person." While Jennison is mentioned, it is the letter that achieves any notability from the sources provided. Jennison's coverage is incidental as the author of the notable letter.  Jim Miller  See me 00:23, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * BIO1E is about distinguishing coverage of an event from coverage of a person. Here, the source is essentially a collection of biographies, and in this specific case, the subject of coverage is clearly Jennison, not the letter. Hesperian 00:35, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Hesperian found a second source above. Also, the guideline about multiple sources is more of a protection from hoaxes (in the present day) and from propagating factual errors that have entered a single source (for historical content).  I'm not sure what sort of expectations editors have regarding sources for subjects like this one.  Rica Erikson's interest in him and the entry in a biographical dictionary I believe satisfy the criteria for a stand-alone article.  Let me also comment that AfD was inappropriate for handling this:  The correct action would be to put a merge proposal in the article's discussion page. patsw (talk) 01:56, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * No, the nominator did not suggest the merge. He thinks it should be deleted, hence AFD is the appropriate place for this discussion. Yoenit (talk) 04:43, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Hesperian forgot to mention though that the "second source" is a genealogical book by the very same author of the first source. This, as established in WP:N, doesn't count as a second source. Fram (talk) 06:56, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Theres the letter itself, and then theres passengers list for the vessel while this is a reproduction obviously the originals are available on paper. another source Convicts in Western Australia, 1850-1887 by Erickson & O'Mara UWA press 1994 isbn:0855642785. WP:BIO1E isnt applicable because isnt Jennison isnt notable for an event, he's a convict who's been documented in reliable sources. Gnangarra 09:44, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * So, that's all only one secondary source. There are two primary source, the letter and the passenger list, which are goodfor verification (which was not disputed). And there is one author who has written about Jennison, which is Erickson. That that was done in two books is irrelevant, per WP:N. And you are right, Wp:BIO1E doesnt apply, it's WP:BIOZEROE in this case... Fram (talk) 09:52, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Happy to grant that probably only one author has made Jennison the subject of secondary source material. I don't see this as an issue. A well-respected historian wrote a few pages of biography on this guy, and it was published by a highly reputable university publisher. The topic is notable enough; it unambiguously meets WP:BIO, and it meets a natural, reasonable, non-wikilawyering reading of WP:N :— An attempt is being made here to elevate the deliberately wishy-washy "multiple sources are generally expected" into a firm rule determining whether we have significant coverage, but the significant coverage dot point merely states that "sources address the subject directly in detail.... Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material....", and those conditions are clearly met here. Hesperian 10:28, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I have to disagree here about your reading of WP:N. It is quite clear by using "reliable sources" throughout the entire policy to show multiple sources are expected. The footnote after the "wishy-washy" multiple sources line says: "Lack of multiple sources suggests that the topic may be more suitable for inclusion in an article on a broader topic.", which is exactly what several people are suggesting. The article has no hope of ever expanding beyond a stub. To be honest I am also quite worried that a keep here will be seen as a precedent that everybody given some coverage in any reliable source (like, obituaries from newspapers) while be seen as notable. Yoenit (talk) 11:00, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * AFD is not precedent setting WP:OTHERSTUFF, this article isnt based on an obiturary, its based on published works. Gnangarra 12:01, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it would be grand if everybody given significant coverage in any reliable source was seen as notable. NOTPAPER, "sum of all human knowledge", etc; I can't think of a single reason to exclude such articles. Hesperian 11:24, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Hesperian, you may well have missed it between my other replies, but in those pages spent on Jennison, do you get any indication why Erickson chose to zoom in on Jennison instead of on any other of the numerous convicts? What sets him apart for her? Why did she consider him notable? Fram (talk) 12:12, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * My understanding is that, in the course of compiling bare bones biographical information on all convicts for the Bond volume of the Dictionary of Western Australians, Erickson identified a small subset of convicts about which there was a great deal more to be said. Therefore she put together a book of greatly expanded biographies on a small number of convicts, each of whom were, in her opinion, of sufficient historical interest to merit such treatment. In the case of Jennison, the existence of an extent letter written by him—an immensely valuable document from a social history point of view—rendered Jennison of sufficient historical interest to her, for her to delve into the records and provide a brief biography of him. All of this is irrelevant, however. You don't get to judge Erickson's decision to write about him. You don't get to decide whether her rationale was good enough. A reputable historian published biographical information on Abraham Jennison. That is all that matters. Hesperian 13:20, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Most convicts were illiterate( probably spelt better then me though ) Jennison wasnt, very little personal documentation is available on convicts of the 293 that arrived on the Pyreness in 1851 Jennison is the only one known to have any personal writting still in existance. Gnangarra 12:24, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. I want to endorse Hesperian's argument that it is WP:WIKILAWYERING to emphasize the word multiple from Notability when that guideline itself explicitly defers to Notability (people) to guide the criteria to be used for the inclusion of biographical subjects. Frankly, I don't know, and I do want to know, what greater goal the advocates of deleting this article are pursuing.  Any one-of-a-kind first person accounts for a part of history where there had been believed to be none is significant.  In this case, there's no sense that this is a hoax or that other accounts are already in Wikipedia for this subject area at the level of detail of this article (thereby making this one a trivial addition).  If there's any doubt the inclusion of this type of history in Wikipedia, Wikipedia:Notability (people) itself should be modified for clarity about this. patsw (talk) 13:05, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Having read the letter, I have to say that I expect something quite different when I read words like "first person accounts for a part of history". The article as written doesn't get its information from a first person account, but from extensive genealogical research. No one has argued that it is a hoax, so I have no idea why you bring this up. There is a dispute whether one source is sufficient or not; some people feel it is, some think it doesn't. It was, in my view, a civilized and rational discourse from both sides. Nothing to get worked up about. That you believe that we have here is sufficient to warrant a stand-alonearticle is a defendable opinion, which is shared by some people in this discussion and not by a few others. That's really all there is to it. Fram (talk) 13:31, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * On that basis of what you have just said - noting in your contributions that you are going through the alphabet (You are still in the A's...) in relation to sources - I would say such a trawl of articles has its pluses and minuses - there could well be another article that you put up similar arguments and no-one comes to the afd - and in that you may well get some afds through on the basis of less convincing arguments simply because some articles have few defenders - it is quite concerning that 'testing' the issues around sources and articles like here - is problematic. To have a literate convict in early Western Australian history is in itself a notable item - regardless of how much is known about the person - SatuSuro 14:03, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Looking at Ex-convict school teachers in Western Australia, it wasn't that rare to have a literate convict (although the number of illiterate ones was much higher). This list includes John Hislop, who was at the same ship as Jennison. Fram (talk) 14:11, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep I had a brief look through the cited book at the library today. The book appears to be a vehicle for presenting Western Australian convict biographies (a small number of the 9500 transported) in a readable form. What is known about the biographical detail of Jennison is given along with the full content of the letter in a few pages. Despite being introduced as one of two examples of rare surviving letters sent "home", this introduction appears to me to be a literary device to tie and introduce two small biographies rather than presenting biographical fragments incidental to the narrative. Melburnian (talk) 14:26, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to Convict era of Western Australia or delete. The guidelines can be parsed all day, however, in the end they are just guidelines. I am not convinced that a minimal biography in one source based upon one letter the subject wrote is enough to establish notability for a stand-alone article. Location (talk) 17:51, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * This, to me, is a very strong argument. Can this article ever reasonably expand further particularly if the claim to fame is being one of the few surviving letters from that period?  All this information can be kept in the Convict article, a redirect added, and nothing is lost save that we exhaust one article to this guy. --M ASEM  (t) 04:54, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Your argument is based on the assumptions that (a) the current article is too short; and (b) fewer articles is better. I disagree with both of these assumptions. Hesperian 05:39, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It is too short. It can never be able to be expanded unless new sources emerge, and again, given that the claim people are making is that this is one of the few surviving first-hand accounts of the Convict era, it is highly unlikely more will appear. There is plenty of space (per WP:SIZE) in Convict era to still cover every detail mentioned about Jennison that's given here. We need fewer articles that have zero chance of becoming quality articles.  --M ASEM  (t) 10:03, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * "per WP:SIZE" is easy enough to throw out there... but there is nothing in that guideline that has any bearing whatsoever on this article. "It is too short." is nothing more than Masem's personal opinion. And I disagree with it. Hesperian 11:26, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep – per the arguments of Hesperian. Also clearly passes all of the basic criteria of WP:BIO and I'm failing to see why this is even being discussed, to be honest. Jenks24 (talk) 08:36, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Question. Is your Delete vote based upon the present state of the article which only cites Rica Erickson as a secondary source for the subject, and there was one other secondary source cited now, you'd vote Keep? patsw (talk) 17:46, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * No, it is based on the belief that no other secondary sources exist. I'd change my vote if additional sources where shown, provided it was (a) indepented on both Erickson and Jennison and (b) gave in depth coverage.  Taemyr (talk) 18:33, 1 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Merge to Convict era of Western Australia. Loath though I am to wade into these already murky waters, this seems to me the most compelling solution and something in the nature of a compromise. The main arguments seem to hinge on whether the coverage given to Jennison is substantial and non-trivial, and whether WP:BLP1E applies. Whether the coverage is significant is debatable and, I think, unanswered; however, the unavoidable fact is that Jennison's notability relies on his writing the letter. As an unusual occurrence (i.e. convict literacy) this event warrants coverage, but the subject of it does not. Merging allows the content to remain but alleviates the notability concerns. Frickeg (talk) 13:37, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, Jennison's notability relies on the fact that he is the subject of reliable source material. So much for your "unavoidable fact." Hesperian 07:02, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Erm, that's what WP:ONEEVENT is for - when someone is covered by reliable material (it makes no reference to being the subject of) but is only notable for one thing. Like Jennison, in other words. Frickeg (talk) 08:58, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


 * We have, as far as I can tell, no evidence at all that he was literate, though. It was very usual for the illiterate to dictate letters to those who were literate, and to have the literatie read out letters to the illiterate. Composing and sending a letter doesn't mean that the author of it was literate. This doesn't mean that the letter isn't for all practical means "by him", or that it isn't unusual, but it shouldn't be used as an argument that Jennison was in some respect unusual, as we have no evidence of that (nor any to the contrary, of course). The letter is unusual, the author isn't. Fram (talk) 06:47, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * how would you suggest the Bio of one person be incorporated into Convict era of Western Australia, or do you propose that the target article be expanded to incorporate bios for all notable convicts out of ~9700 who were transported to Western Australia. Gnangarra 07:13, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Per the arguments of Hesperian. Five Years 13:24, 4 October 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.