Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bert Biscoe


 * 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. Clearly there is a verify divisive view over to whether or not this person is notable, so it's best to close this. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  18:45, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Bert Biscoe

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Doesn't meet WP:NPOL or WP:GNG. Local councillor. Boleyn (talk) 18:47, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Personage is main subject in multiple independent news reports over 25+ year period. Personage is also active in groups/organisations/charities/council(s) (yes two councils) which have attracted more independent news coverage. this is not counting ample primary sources. NB. WP:OFFLINE may apply to some older sources. see article talk page. A Guy into Books (talk) 18:55, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:43, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:44, 28 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment. The subject appears to be one of 123 on the Cornwall Council, and most of these other councillors will also have similar, routine political coverage of their opinions and positions in reliable new reports. WP:POLITICIAN exists because not all elected officials are notable for simply doing their jobs, but I'll wait to see if anyone posts a "claim to fame" that rises above this. -Location (talk) 20:49, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Per WP:NPOL. Local political figure with the usual amount of routine coverage. Nothing exceptional or in-depth to demonstrate notability. The sources discussed on the article talkpage are primary sources such as his profile on the Cornwall Council website, his own website or sources such as local blogs - not independent, reliable secondary sources. AusLondonder (talk) 02:38, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Posting another comment to say that ITV and The Guardian are considered national independent reliable sources. [] and [] also please note http://www.cornwalllive.com/ is not a 'local blog', but a regional news outlet. total ignorance in the article of his music career should probably be dealt with also since several books cover him on this topic. A Guy into Books (talk) 07:21, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The ITV and Guardian articles are about a bridge, his opinion as a local councillor is quoted within them. That does not add up to notability. Boleyn (talk) 12:23, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * note there is a KW article for this person also. https://kw.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bert_Biscoe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aguyintobooks (talk • contribs) 12:37, 29 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete as a local councilor clearly fails the notability guidelines for politicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:09, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Bard of Cornish Gorsedh, this indicates he and his work have been recognised as significant by a major cultural organisation in his area of work. DuncanHill (talk) 18:11, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I have rewritten the article to reflect this, it seems that his primary career was as a Bard, and that he only went into politics later. A Guy into Books (talk) 12:32, 30 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete unless the article sees significant improvement before close. Nothing here constitutes an automatic presumption of notability just because he exists, if the sourcing present in the article isn't sufficient to get him over WP:GNG — and while it's true that an article can be deemed to pass GNG if adequate sources exist even if the article isn't up to scratch yet, it's not enough to just say that adequate sources exist: one has to show hard evidence that adequate sources exist, such as the actual hard results of an actual search. And even if this does get deleted, that doesn't constitute a permanent ban on his ever being allowed to have an article — if somebody can write and source something better than this, they are allowed to try again. But we can't keep an entirely primary sourced version just because somebody asserts that stronger sources exist somewhere. Bearcat (talk) 19:01, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Article was rewritten at this point


 * This article has now been considerably improved, with new references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aguyintobooks (talk • contribs) 11:31, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * No, it really hasn't been improved. I see far too many references which are to primary sources, Blogspot blogs and/or glancing namechecks of his existence in media coverage of things that aren't him, and not even close to enough that are to reliable source coverage that has him as its subject. Bearcat (talk) 07:31, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I disagree, there are at least three WP:RS sources about him, which is enough for WP:GNG. Most the other comment here refer to WP:NPOL which i can't see being relevant here. A Guy into Books (talk) 23:09, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
 * No, three sources aren't enough for GNG if you're shooting for "notable because media coverage of him exists" rather than "notable because he passes a subject-specific inclusion criterion". If three sources were all it took to pass GNG, we'd have to start keeping articles about presidents of church bake sale committees, teenagers who tried out for their high school football team six months after having a toe amputated, and the woman a mile down the road from my parents who found a pig in her yard one day. Bearcat (talk) 17:06, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Three sources will definitively pass GNG in most discussions I have come across, I think its fairly clear NPOL is not the main guideline here. Also we have articles about all of those things. (ok not really, but you get the point). A Guy into Books (talk) 20:13, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The only way three sources can be enough to pass GNG by themselves is if they're supporting passage of a must-include criterion like being an MP or winning an Oscar. If you're going for "notable just because media coverage exists", then no, three sources aren't enough to get there. Three sources quite regularly do exist for lots of people or things that still don't qualify for a Wikipedia article, such as the examples I gave in the preceding comment — hell, three sources exist about me — so three sources aren't enough for GNG if they're not verifying passage of any SNGs. And I was talking about high school athletes, not professional ones, and I meant the woman, not the pig — so your examples don't contradict my point at all. Bearcat (talk) 18:42, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * lmao you checked the links ok can you please explain to me what it takes for a living person to pass GNG. because I have no clue what your standard of proof is, mine is just 3 RS/V/O sources. Consider subject is Published author of (11?) books, bard of the Gorsedh, musician, local councillor, unitary authority councillor, and portfolio holder (boss) of transport in cornwall, responsible for 50m a year budget, trustee on the board of the Royal Cornwall museum, trustee of 3 charities, chairman of 2 charity boards, also is a representative of the Cornish Constitutional Convention. Is considered locally to be a primary figure in the Cornish Idenity debate and is one of the few people who actually speak cornish. A Guy into Books (talk) 19:58, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * My standard is that the person either (a) has a strong claim to passing a subject-specific inclusion standard, or (b) can show that he got quite a lot more reliable source coverage (i.e. quite a bit more than just two, three or four pieces of it) than the woman a mile down the road from my parents got for finding the pig in her yard. Neither of which have been shown as true here yet. And most of what you asked me to consider isn't notability claims at all: local authority councillor is not a notability claim; being trustee or chairman of a charity board is not a notability claim; and on and so forth — those are all things that hundreds of thousands of people in the world, probably into the millions if you consider people who used to hold those roles but don't still because they're retired or dead, so they aren't notability freebies in the absence of quite a lot more reliable source coverage than the woman with the pig got. Bearcat (talk) 15:16, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep Published bards, recognised by their peers, should be seen as Notable. The council work belongs here, but it's an irrelevance for notability. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:02, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  J 947(c) (m) 18:29, 5 September 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: relisting for further discussion, particularly with regards to whether the new sources rise above non routine coverage
 * Comment. Further to Bearcat's comments. I have decided that the correct subject-specific inclusion standard this personage is notable under is WP:COMPOSER. which is due to his bardic work and subsequent recognition by the Gorsedh. A Guy into Books (talk) 13:27, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Now that A Guy into Books has aimed the article towards Biscoe's career as a Bard, this now does pass WP:COMPOSER. Zangar (talk) 22:56, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 05:54, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I have overhauled the sources and added some new ones related to his bardic career. &Alpha; Guy into Books &trade;  &sect; ( Message ) -  11:56, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * You have done a lot of good work on the article, but I do not see the level of coverage to meet WP:COMPOSER or WP:GNG. There are many sources on this - probably too many - but many are not reliable sources, or are primary sources. Being a bard does not make you inherently notable. You commenting on this page so many times can also misleadingly read like different people commenting, and you cannot have multiple keep votes - I have struck your second vote. Please only continue to comment here if you have something new to say. Boleyn (talk) 15:39, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I suppose since you nominated this for deletion that would be your opinion, you do have a record to maintain and all. My point is that this article is well sourced, with at least one secondary sources to back up each use of a primary source, and by my count, 5 good sources that show WP:GNG, Wikipedia should rightfully be stringent in keeping cruft out, but this undoubtedly meets all the relevant guidelines, especially WP:GNG. As far as my comments are concerned, this was closed as keep and then mysteriously reopened, obviously I am going to comment. &Alpha; Guy into Books &trade;  &sect; ( Message ) -  19:25, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Why are you citing WP:COMPOSER and ignoring WP:AUTHOR? He's an invited member of the Cornish Gorsedd. For a bard, that is how you get recognised as a bard. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:56, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * He could probably meet WP:AUTHOR, he has published a lot of books, some of which are listed in the article already, I just don't know the precedent for bards, they are a sort of author/poet/musician combo which is hard to place. &Alpha; Guy into Books &trade;  &sect; ( Message ) -  20:05, 13 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment I have had a major disagreement with Boleyn elsewhere over this Afd. However during that I noticed that notwithstanding the comments made by others here, this person actually does meet WP:NPOL #1. as he held a 'provincewide office' as Portfolio Holder for Transport in Cornwall. &Alpha; Guy into Books &trade;  &sect; ( Message ) -  22:02, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Cornwall is a county, not a province or state. NPOL #1 does not include offices held at the county level of government, and England's lack of any level of government between the counties and Westminster does not reify the counties into states or provinces for the purposes of NPOL #1 — whether there are provinces/states or not, county offices are still evaluated under NPOL #2 and only NPOL #2. Bearcat (talk) 16:42, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I disagree, everywhere outside London is 'the provinces' by British definition. And with the exception of Northern Ireland, which is electively a single province (often known as 'The province'), every administrative section of the UK is its own province. I realise you are probably American (actually I just checked, you are Canadian, but same difference for this comparison), where counties are pretty insignificant, but here in the UK that is not the case, what you consider as a county, we call a parish, what you call a state, we call a county. As a point of fact province is the same as county when filling out addresses and internet forms. people sending me mail from Spain for example will fill in the province as Devon, this is standard correct procedure. &Alpha; Guy into Books &trade;  &sect; ( Message ) -  19:23, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The only reason a county is "equivalent" to a state or province in filling out a mailing address is because the county is the only division that exists for that purpose in England, precisely because no equivalent to states or provinces is in place to supplant them. It does not constitute evidence that English counties are politically equivalent to states or provinces for the purposes of getting from NPOL #2 to NPOL #1 — Wikipedians from England are the ones who spearheaded the consensus that county councils are not a level of government that confers an automatic NPOL pass on every councillor. And no, the North American equivalent to a UK parish would be called a township, not a county — a county here is the same thing as a county there.Bearcat (talk) 19:52, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * This isnt 'any councillor', this is a (former) member of the 10 member executive cabinet group, theres 113 councillors below him.
 * I'm going back to arguing WP:GNG and author/composer is sufficient. &Alpha; Guy into Books &trade;  &sect; ( Message ) -  21:13, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Being a member of the county council's executive/cabinet still isn't an automatic notability boost over any other county councillor, because it's still a local office that has to be weighed under NPOL #2 rather than NPOL #1 — so it still depends on sourcing that work well enough to get him past GNG for it, not on any automatic inclusion rights. If you want to switch to arguing notability under a creative criterion rather than a political one, that's fine — I have nothing to say about that, since I'm not well-equipped to properly assess creative notability in many cases for a British writer or musician whose audience hasn't crossed The Pond like Radiohead's or Zadie Smith's. My issue in this subthread had to do with the claim that a county council seat could be reified into a provincial or state legislature for the purposes of NPOL, because it can't. Bearcat (talk) 15:32, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Optakeover (U)(T)(C) 17:28, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * This is dragging on a bit. Can someone who has not commented before take a look and give a viewpoint? &Alpha; Guy into Books &trade;  &sect; ( Message ) -  19:28, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete does not meet WP:NPOL overall fails WP:BIO and does not meet WP:AUTHOR for published books. --EC Racing (talk) 19:32, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Enos733 (talk) 21:52, 21 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep Bards are important Abrasapuentes (talk) 22:16, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep As rewritten, the article overcomes the original criticism. Comment:  I'm surprised to read that Aguyintobooks is being told not to comment here when his every response is challenged.  I don't see how the user is supposed to remain silent and have that viewed as acquiescence.  GetSomeUtah (talk) 22:33, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Nobody's saying he can't comment. However, if his comment includes a misunderstanding of what our notability standards entail, or a misrepresentation of how the subject does or doesn't pass them, nobody is obligated to let that misapprehension go unresponded to either. Freedom of speech does not offer an exemption from being responded to by other people who are also exercising their own freedom of speech. Bearcat (talk) 16:26, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * But clearly not everyone shares your interpretation of NPOL, even on the policy board I can't see anyone to agree that sources related to political activity are discounted when considering notability, nor do I agree that a biography has to pass a subject specific criterion to be encyclopedic relevant when the general notability criteria clearly applies when they do not pass such subject specific guideline.
 * To quote your comment earlier "My standard is that the person either (a) has a strong claim to passing a subject-specific inclusion standard, or (b) can show that he got quite a lot more reliable source coverage (i.e. quite a bit more than just two, three or four pieces of it) than the woman a mile down the road from my parents got for finding the pig in her yard" - this is obviously your opinion, possibly based on your own interpretation of something written in the ~2250 pages of policy we seem to have. Now my standard is the GNG of - "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" which means at least two sources where the subject is mentioned with enough detail that the person be identified without recourse to research, and the sources not be written by the subject or relation thereof. - there are about 8-9 good sources, 15 if you include the ones about his late political activity. There are more sources offline but that is beside the point because I cannot be asked to manually trawl miles of microfiche.
 * There is absolutely no way I agree with your assessment of the notability guideline, nor have I noticed your interpretation being used in any context except Corpdepth, where it is admirable. I am not going to suggest you have confused them, so I am strongly disagreeing they work in the same way and calling you a deletionist. I am putting way to much effort into arguing this so I am well glad its about to be closed and I can get on with something else. &Alpha; Guy into Books &trade;  &sect; ( Message ) -  19:42, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Every single county councillor who has ever existed in every county on earth could always show two pieces of local media coverage — so if your "two sources" interpretation were all it took to get a county councillor over GNG, then every county councillor in existence would always pass GNG and our consensus that county councillors are not automatically notable enough for Wikipedia articles would be inherently disembowelled. So no, to get a county councillor past GNG does take a lot more than just two or three pieces of local coverage. I am not wrong about this, nor am I applying any variant personal standards that differ so much as one iota from established consensus in this domain of activity: at the county level of office, we require evidence that the person is more notable than the norm, by virtue of being able to show a lot more and wider coverage than county councillors can always simply be expected to have in their local media. Bearcat (talk) 19:47, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I was of course referring to the coverage by national media as well. I cannot understand the bias against this grouping "Every single county councillor who has ever existed in every county on earth" is ~56,000 people, as councils were only invented in the 19th century in England and around the 1960-1980's in much of the world. Their equivalents in China and Indian (where the exist) are not elected in the same way and do not get news coverage, seemingly a western preoccupation. NPOL does not put forward what you say, it infact specifically states quite the contrary; "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article".", and from the common outcomes policy, which also does not support your interpretation "Municipal politicians are not inherently notable just for being in politics, but neither are they inherently non-notable just because they are in local politics". Therefore I must still disagree with you, even though I am confident he passes by his other accomplishments, notably the bardic work, before his political career that he seemingly only started after retirement. &Alpha; Guy into Books &trade;  &sect; ( Message ) -  20:07, 25 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete Agree does not meet WP:NPOL. Poorly referenced including a list of every reference they appear to have even been tangentially referenced in. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 17:29, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete I regretfully concur that this does not meet WP:NPOL and the level of available sources does not reach WP:GNG either, the list of references show a valiant attempt to show what there is, yet it is unfortunately not significant coverage of this man. MartinJones (talk) 20:13, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Just posting the references removed by Doc James  and brigade just before their comments here after sticking an edit war template on my talk page after two reverts (really?). I am not saying they are completely biased, but anyway here are references they removed:                                  --- &Alpha; Guy Into Books&trade; &sect; ( Message ) -  20:34, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * This ONE is particularly interesting in that it contains nothing. That is correct, nothing. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 20:38, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thats hardly my fault, it had content at one point. --- &Alpha; Guy Into Books&trade; &sect; ( Message ) -  21:08, 26 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete I'm not sure what this massive list of "refs" is supposed to be not a single one of them satisfies GNG and certainly isn't independent reliable coverage. And neither does anything else I can find. CHRISSY MAD  ❯❯❯  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯  21:18, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Well clearly you didn't look very hard, not at the article even, also you forgot to sign. --- &Alpha; Guy Into Books&trade; &sect; ( Message ) -  21:08, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually, I read both the article and the massive refspam list here - none of it includes coverage. Perhaps you can point out the specific sources that feature in-depth coverage? CHRISSY MAD  ❯❯❯  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯  21:20, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes ok:


 * 1) Subject is a bard of the Gorsedh Kernow, which in itself is enough to pass criterion 1 of WP:CREATIVE. His work as a menstrel in the Kernewek tradition has received significant critical attention and therefore meets criterion 4 of WP:CREATIVE.
 * (will add more) --- &Alpha; Guy Into Books&trade; &sect; ( Message ) -  22:06, 26 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete per Doc James, Bearcat, and Chrissymad. Fails NPOL. The great things about the subject notability guidelines is that they give us a lens through witch to view the GNG: if they have coverage that would be expected for their level in their chosen field, but do not meet the subject guideline, it is unlikely that they will meet our standards for the GNG, because the coverage will have been deemed run of the mill. That is the case here. An appeal to the GNG from an SNG is possible, but I don't see there being enough in this case. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:07, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * yes I thinks its established he fails NPOL, what about the rest? --- &Alpha; Guy Into Books&trade; &sect; ( Message ) -
 * I'm not convinced by your above arguments in that regard. Considering the CREATIVE 1 claim is dubious: the overwhleming majority of people listed at Gorsedh_Kernow are not articles. That suggests that the Wikipedia community hasn't generally recognized it as meeting that criterion. There is zero evidence he also meets CREATIVE 4: if you can provide peer reviewed work concerning him or provide in-depth reviews and commentary from highly reliable sources, I might be convinced to change my mind, but none of what has been presented gets near that standard from what I can see. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:14, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * "Highly reliable"? Well that puts him out of the picture. :) Druids, Bards and other esteemed old bearded people are not known for their highly reliable work. I doubt any sane mainstream reviewer would even bother, in fact the Indepedant had this to say. Its a matter of some national pride to only publish commentary on bardic work in Cornish. eg.  Viajor Gans Geryow eus rydhses gans y brentin gonis... etc (from a commentary by Skogyn Pryv) In short you can take what you will from it. --- &Alpha; Guy Into Books&trade; &sect; ( Message ) -  20:50, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * CREATIVE 4 requires significant critical coverage of their work. That means analysis and reviews that engage with the text, not simply press coverage. In response to your comment above re: CREATIVE 1, the Wikipedia community does not seem to share your opinion that this title is generally sufficient for inclusion. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:34, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * It would be more correct to say that Wikipedians haven't considered it before, I mean all the comments on bards above^ are pretty positive. There is no way obscure publications written in a dead language spoken only 1000 people could be considered press coverage, or really any form of popular culture, the whole cultural tradition only survives because the EU think it is nationally important to support this minority ethnic group and therefore gives it funding. --- &Alpha; Guy Into Books&trade; &sect; ( Message ) -  21:54, 27 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Realistically the entire argument above is mostly irrelevant back and forth about policies that don't really apply, what matters is that crition 1 of WP:CREATIVE 1. The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors. This is definitely passed, as stated by myself and five others here, the fact no one can look beyond the politics is neither here nor there, you can discount every single reference and he would still be notable according to the subject specific guidelines. Its not really possible at the moment to write as much about this person as is perhaps going to be written eventually, mostly due to sources being on microfiche and in other languages, nevertheless there is a sufficient amount of verifiable information already included to make a start class article. --- &Alpha; Guy Into Books&trade; &sect; ( Message ) -  21:09, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Admin closer please.


 * 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.