Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cracroft's Peerage


 * 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   delete. The only argument for keeping has been that the subject is a reliable source. However, that is irrelevant when it comes to determing whether the subject itself should have an article or not. In this case the concerns concerning notability, and lack of independent coverage of the publication itself, appear well founded. That does not render any decision on whether the subject of the article may be used as a source in other articles. Sjakkalle (Check!)  09:48, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Cracroft's Peerage

 * – ( View AfD View log )


 * 1st reason: Cracroft's Peerage (hereafter CP) is a home-made publication by a layman, Mr Patrick Cracroft-Brennan.
 * 2nd reason: The article lacks sources and references.
 * 3rd reason: CP is not notable. (Example: Only approx. 12,500 hits on Google, whereof approx. 9,200 hits when excluding cracroftspeerage.co.uk and wikipedia.org. Comparatively, the more known Burke's Peerage and Gentry gets over two millions.)
 * 4th reason: It is claimed, among others by me, that CP contains incorrect and/or speculative information (hereunder the editor's own juridical interpretations), especially what concerns newer information. This is also likely, as this is a case where a non-expert is dealing with advanced and difficult peerage law which experts have studied for years to understand the width of. Wikipedia should not include peerages that are not recognised as qualitative and reliable, as this may lead readers into believing that CP is authoritative. I see that CP already is being used as a source in articles here. Examples are John Temple (diplomat) (quotation: Following the death of Sir Richard Temple, 7th Baronet in 1786, John Temple claimed the Temple Baronetcy of Stowe on the basis of a declaration by George Nugent-Temple-Grenville, 1st Marquess of Buckingham, but his claim is disputed. It is not recognized, for instance, by Cracroft's Peerage,[3] which considers the baronetcy to be dormant.), Duke of Hamilton, and Charles Culling Smith.
 * 5th reason: The article might be self-promotion/advertisement for CP.

--- Aaemn784 (talk) 05:21, 21 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep This reference work is regularly mentioned as a reliable source of information by The Times, the BBC, The Daily Telegraph, and the Daily Mail, and by American sources such as Business Week and MSNBC. Shortcomings in the article should be addressed by normal editing rather than deletion. If reliable sources criticize the publication as does the nominator, then such criticism can be included in the article.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  06:50, 21 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete: CP is not notable (neither broadly recognised nor accepted by third-party publishers). That some large newspapers refer to it, is not strange, as many media use Wikipedia. When the article – with today's form and promotional/non-disputed text – remains standing here, readers who have noticed CP as a reference on the site, and who thereafter visit this article to check whether CP is authoritative on this field, may easily believe that the the with CP sourced information is factual, reliable, etcetera. I dislike having to say it, but the reality is sometimes hard: All factors indicate that this is one man's home-made work. Wikipedia states that self-published sources generally are unreliable. Quotation: Anyone can create a personal web page or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published media, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, [... are largely not acceptable as sources. Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. [...] Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer.] --- Aaemn784 (talk) 18:08, 21 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 19:57, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 19:57, 21 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment Aaemn784 seemingly does not understand the distinction between a publication that is notable and therefore eligible for an article on Wikipedia, and a publication that is considered a reliable source that can be cited in a Wikipedia article. Of course, many publications are both.  But there are many publications that are clearly notable, and we have Wikipedia articles about those publications, but are by no means considered reliable sources.  Examples that come immediately to mind include Der Stürmer, Weekly World News, The Onion, Mad Magazine and The Realist.  On the other hand, there are countless examples of academic or historical journals, or books published by reputable houses written by authors with solid credentials, that are perfectly acceptable as reliable sources yet have no articles about them on Wikipedia. I am arguing here that Cracroft's Peerage is notable, not that it is reliable.  If Aaemn784 is aware of reliable sources stating that Cracroft's Peerage is not reliable, then that information and source should be added to the article.  Deletion of an article about a notable topic is not the solution.  Cullen 328   Let's discuss it  20:42, 21 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment on comment: Quotation: ‘If Aaemn784 is aware of reliable sources stating that Cracroft's Peerage is not reliable, then that information and source should be added to the article.’ A basic principle in academia, is that notability, and not the lack of notability, has to be documented. Furthermore, (in this case) the editor(s) concerned has to provide it. I clicked ‘Find sources: "Cracroft's Peerage"’ above, and got some 4,000 hits on Google. CP is obviously not notable, but a private project which also is without experts' necessary quality control. See for example the John Temple case above. --- Aaemn784 (talk) 21:25, 21 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment on comment: Quotation: ‘Aaemn784 seemingly does not understand the distinction between a publication that is notable and therefore eligible for an article on Wikipedia, and a publication that is considered a reliable source that can be cited in a Wikipedia article.’ I strongly recommend that such speculative or suggestive comments are avoided in the future, especially when used instead of argumentation. It appears clearly that both lacking notability and lacking reliability are among the reasons for deletion. --- Aaemn784 (talk) 21:25, 21 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Further comment If Aaemn784's main concern is that some articles on Wikipedia cite Cracroft's Peerage, then perhaps the WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard might be a better venue for those concerns.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  20:47, 21 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment on comment: As one sees, the deletion proposal is built upon several issues, e.g. both lacking notability and lacking reliability. --- Aaemn784 (talk) 21:25, 21 August 2011 (UTC)


 * There is no Wikipedia policy or guideline that requires a publication to be "reliable" in order to have an article here, so the nominator's unsourced claims about that mean very little. I've already furnished five examples of publications that are notable though unreliable, and still have Wikipedia articles.  The issue here is whether or not Cracroft's Peerage is notable.  It is notable because it is discussed in the six reliable sources I mentioned earlier, as well as a number of others that I didn't mention, as shown in a Google News Archive search.  We don't count basic Google hits here and compare thousands of hits for one topic against millions of hits for another topic, and thereby conclude that the first topic is not notable.  That is a well-known argument to avoid in deletion discussions.  Even two or three solid, reliable, independent sources are sufficient to establish notability.  Cullen 328   Let's discuss it  22:32, 21 August 2011 (UTC)


 * It would be interesting to see whether there have been similar discussions on Wikipedia. Beside that, please provide, if you have, 'solid, reliable, independent sources' giving CP notability. That is a minimum when claiming that CP is notable. --- Aaemn784 (talk) 22:37, 21 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Furthermore, the search engine hits are not an argument for, but rather an indication of, lacking notability. --- Aaemn784 (talk) 23:14, 21 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Reply The raw number of Google hits is irrelevant in this debate and indicates nothing, so there is no benefit to you in continuing to mention it. The vast majority of raw Google hits on any given topic mean nothing in terms of Wikipedia notability.  It is necessary to separate wheat from chaff.  This Google News Archive Search shows that Cracroft's Peerage has been discussed by many reliable sources in England, Scotland and the United States.  There is also a Russian source, although I am not able to evaluate its reliability, since I don't read Russian. I see what I think is a Latvian source called Apollo as well. This Google News Archive search also shows that Cracroft's Peerage and its publisher have been discussed by reliable sources in Germany such as Stern and Netzeitung.  I can read German laboriously.  It is also discussed in the Hungarian publication Origo, but I am not sure if that publication is considered reliable, since I don't read Hungarian.  Most of these are the kind of sources that establish notability by Wikipedia standards.  Any further mention of the claimed unreliability of Cracroft's Peerage should be directed to the proper venue, and ought to be based on what reliable sources say, rather than on any original research conducted by the nominator.  Cullen 328   Let's discuss it  00:49, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Name or book being mentioned in newspapers (hereunder in their gossip articles about royals etc.) is remarkably different than in an explicitly relevant circumstance, be it in an article about peerage reference books, being recognised by (relevant scientific) newspapers. Furthermore, it is known to all that reporters often (often uncritically and with haste) use Wikipedia, which they expect to contain correct information, but which sometimes has lacks or errors of various types. (For the foreign/non-English newspapers: They often translate directly from English newspapers, wherefore they to a large extent may be excluded from consideration.) To me, and as far as I have seen on Wikipedia, being notable is, generally, the combination of scholars/experts having their work published by a recognised third-part. This is a good basic rule to follow, as Wikipedia otherwise would drown in private solo-projects like CP, which is written, published, and promoted by exactly the same layman. --- Aaemn784 (talk) 01:32, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Major newspapers with good reputations for independent editorial control, accuracy, fact-checking and error correction are considered reliable sources here, and are routinely cited in a wide range of articles on Wikipedia. This is not a topic, such as a highly technical medical or scientific matter, that demands reliance solely on scholarly or "expert" sources, whatever those would be regarding the subject matter at hand. In my humble American opinion, the BBC and The Times are reliably sources when it comes to British peerage. But I could be wrong.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  03:00, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * You are mixing the cards again. 1.) That a newspaper generally has good reputations, does not guarantee that mistakes might not occur. For example the New York Times, I think, were some years ago fooled to completeness by a man with educational claims which I do not remember here and now. (Yes, maybe were they fooled into believing that CP is an expert's work when they checked this article on Wikipedia.) 2.) It is irrelevant whether the BBC and the Times are reliable sources what concerns British peerage; they do not make CP less home-made, less self-published, or more notable.


 * As I have pointed at, the relevant factor is not in which newspaper CP happens to be used as a source, but in which kind of article. CP's appearance in one of these gossip articles about royals – articles that themselves tend to be rather superficial and unreliable in the choice of words, the presentation of facts, etc. –, does not give CP any mention-worthy academical credit/reputation. However, in an article about e.g. peerage, for instance, and this in a generally reliable newspaper, it would indeed be a few steps on CP's mile-long way to notability.


 * If CP shall gain notability through being mentioned in two or three recognised, independent newspapers, it should, the way that I see it, be in articles about the peerage per se, and not one with gossip and 'latest news' about the Duchess of Cornwall. --- Aaemn784 (talk) 05:25, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * You write, Aaemn784 that "It is irrelevant whether the BBC and the Times are reliable sources what concerns British peerage; they do not make CP less home-made, less self-published, or more notable." Notability in Wikipedia terms derives exactly from discussion of the topic by reliable sources. Your opinion is that the coverage is limited to "gossip".  I don't think that most of the publications we are discussing are known as purveyors of "gossip". When these publications discuss various people's ancestry and refer to Cracroft's Peerage as the source of their information, then that confers notability on Cracroft's Peerage.  It is quite telling that you have not yet been able to produce a single reliable source that describes the publication as unreliable. I've furnished evidence and so far, you haven't.  Cullen 328   Let's discuss it  18:47, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you for all contributions in this discussion. I believe that we now have presented a sufficient summary of opinions and arguments, and as such made it clear that we have different definitions of the concept notability: the ultra-loose and the normal, respectively.


 * In general (i.e. not addressed to specific persons), I would like to emphasise the following: Good argumentation should always be preferred when taking a decision. One must not be lead into believing that massive amounts of text necessarily are academically heavy. --- Aaemn784 (talk) 15:04, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete I think in this case I would look to see if it's discussed in reliable books and journals, and as I can find no such use on Google Books and Google Scholar. And in fact I can't find any significant discussion in Cullen's link, just use (which is quite different), and many of the articles seem to be about its editor and not the publication. Dougweller (talk) 10:38, 23 August 2011 (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.