Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Cuppage


 * 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. Since the debate is roughly evenly divided among "keep" and "delete" this warrants some explanation. Initially, the article was nominated based on verifiability concerns (confirmation that the sources were about the same person), but after the basic facts are in place, the question is really one of notability. The sole plausible claim to notability in the article is the position of Dean of Connor, all the other content, being a priest, the place and time of birth and death, and place of education, is registry-type information that may well belong in a biography, but that confers no notability.

The "keep" side has argued that the Dean of Connor is a sufficiently notable position that anyone who has held it is notable ("the position conveys sufficient notability"), and the fact that the article is a stub is not a reason for deletion.

However, notability, as defined in Wikipedia, has generally been about the presence and availability of source material that gives significant coverage to the subject. While very short articles ("stubs") are acceptable, it should, at least in principle, be possible to develop the article. Very few categories of articles are considered inherently notable. In this case, the source material is extremely limited, there is barely enough to establish the positions that Cuppage held and nothing about what he did while serving in those positions. As Charles Matthews mentioned, it is unclear at best if the dean position at that time was a real position of clerical authority, or a sinecure.

With the very limited sourcing, I cannot see that WP:N is met by any reasonable standard. Although WP:N is a guideline that can be interpreted or even overruled by consensus when there is good cause, I cannot see that any argument for doing so has been made here. Sjakkalle (Check!)  13:59, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

George Cuppage

 * – ( View AfD View log )

No evidence of any notability could be found. The first sources lists very briefly a George Cuppage who was 16 in 1715, so unclear whether this is the same person. I couldn't find Cuppage in the second source, and in the third source he gets one line. Searching online produced nothing else at all. Searching even further gave some very brief entries for a George Cuppaidge, which seems to be the same person, but even then there isn't enough to meet our notability guidelines. Fram (talk) 14:17, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 14:17, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 14:17, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 14:17, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi, these previous discussions on deletion of Wikipedia articles might help

Bashereyre (talk) 14:19, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Articles for deletion/John Plemth
 * Articles for deletion/David Booth (priest)
 * Articles for deletion/George Henry Cameron
 * Articles for deletion/Michael John Keatinge
 * Articles for deletion/Tim Raphael
 * Articles for deletion/Thomas Tuttebury
 * Articles for deletion/Thomas de Bodham
 * Articles for deletion/Wandlyn Snelgrove
 * Articles for deletion/Joseph Verschoyle
 * Articles for deletion/Charles Wolfe (priest)
 * Articles for deletion/Peter Wall (priest)
 * Articles for deletion/Frederick Falkiner Goold
 * Articles for deletion/Gordon Kuhrt
 * Articles for deletion/Clifford Lacey
 * Articles for deletion/Stephen Cheston
 * Actually, no, these don't help. You post these every time someone nominates a dean article you created, as if a series of AfDs which ended some in delete, some in keep, some in merge or redirect, mean anything special. There is no general rule that all deans anywhere, anytime, are notable (or not of course). Some of them obviously are, and some may have been nominated in error. Others, like this one, don't seem to have the necessary notability. No list of other AfDs for other persons will change this one way or another. Fram (talk) 14:26, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Of course you could have written this. "Hi Basher. Thank's for posting these and indeed thanks for all your hard work on the project over the last 14 years. Like all of us you sometimes need guidance. Yours collaboratively Fram" I've had another read through this Civility, cannot see I have done anything to deserve your scorn. I've never ever been in trouble with anyone on the site. Have you?
 * Delete per nom. The linked sources barely (if at all in some cases) confirm that the subject existed. A WP:BEFORE search returns nothing additional. Just being a member of clergy (even a relatively senior member of a diocese or deanary) doesn't automatically confer notability. And there is nothing at all to indicate that this subject did anything at all (other than being appointed to the role of "dean") to suggest that WP:ANYBIO is met. Or, frankly, any other notability criteria for that matter. Guliolopez (talk) 15:23, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete. Nothing encyclopaedic in the stub. EleOk6e3ih (talk) 16:01, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete - per nom and per Guliolopez. Spleodrach (talk) 22:47, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: George Cuppaidge is indeed the same person: and similar reference book entries are enough to make the identification. There clearly is a story here about Cuppage serving as private chaplain to Admiral Edward Vernon, in the naval expedition to Portobello during the War of Jenkins' Ear of 1739. Cuppage was evidently rewarded with preferment. The details in the reference are not obviously correct, though. Charles Matthews (talk) 04:46, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I thank Charles as always for being able to find facts I did not reach.
 * Keep per Charles Matthews--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 00:13, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 13:49, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. I suspect there may be a problem with the different uses of the word "dean" in different denominations of Christianity. I found it useful to look at Dean (Christianity) to get some clarity on this. Deans in the Catholic Church, for example, don't seem to have much notability. However, I think deans in the Anglican Church (and thus in the Church of Ireland) do seem to be notable as the chief resident cleric of a cathedral and head of that cathedral's college of canons; I suspect that these deans are notable "ex officio", rather as some otherwise uninteresting bishops are. I think we draw the line like this: the chief resident cleric of a cathedral or equivalent large religious institution is automatically notable, as is the chief potentially non-resident cleric (such as a bishop). In general, people who have got to these roles have had some kind of impact, even if history has subsequently forgotten much of it. However, I think we don't extend notability any futher down: in particular, I think it's pretty clear that canons are non-notable simply for being canons, and rural deans are similarly non-notable. For what it's worth, I think the same general principle can be applied moderately clearly to other religions. RomanSpa (talk) 18:44, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete It is bad enough that we claim all Anglican/Episcopalian bishops are notable, when some preside over very small organizations. We should not give such notability to other offices. We should not keep an article which has one source which provides a very short references, one source that says nothing of substance and one source that says nothing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:42, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment. I'm very sympathetic with your concerns, and in general I don't like adding minor personages to Wikipedia. However, I want to make it clear that my point is not specific to Anglicanism/Episcopalianism. Rather, what I'm seeking to say is this: major religious institutions of all religions - all denominations of Christianity, but also other religions including but not limited to Islam, Hinduism, Sikhism, Judaism, etc. - are headed and administered by people who are notable because of their contributions to those religions and institutions, even if we do not, because of our natural biases of time and place and culture, know exactly wherein this notability rests. In any case, Charles Matthews has provided enough additional pointers to justify the article's retention at this time. RomanSpa (talk) 10:50, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Further comment: I agree with that cathedral deans do have reasonable standing; in the case of the Church of Ireland during the Protestant Ascendency it is a little harder to understand if the position was more than a sinecure. I think the position of the article is in the "neither helps nor hinders" class of marginal notability, absent sources that are better than Burke, which is perhaps based on family traditions. Such topics tend to generate lengthy debates without being conclusive. Charles Matthews (talk) 11:03, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete per . I do agree that bishops/chief rabbis of major denominations are (almost) always notable, although not deans. In this case, as per my usual practice at AfD, if you can find three good sources and add them, them I would change my mind. Bearian (talk) 18:49, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 14:13, 17 July 2021 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Keep We normally have had bio-articles for Anglican higher clerics, including dens and archdeacons. In this particular case we have little detail of his career, but that implies tagging it for improvement, not deleting it.  note we have a a well-populated category for Category:Deans of Connor.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:31, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. That we have other articles for deans doesn't mean that every dean is notable, and furthermore it seems as if other articles in that category can do with some scrutiny as well; e.g. Frederick Rusk, which isn't some late medieval hard to find person but a recent one, seems to lack the required notability for an article as well. Fram (talk) 07:48, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep as my assessment is that 1) We have enough to V this person existed and held this position, and 2) The position conveys sufficient notability as supported sources including Charles Matthews' findings under an alternative spelling of his last name. Jclemens (talk) 21:03, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep per the others above. Just because it's a stub doesn't mean it should be deleted. Dr. Universe (talk) 19:03, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
 * (perhaps useless) Comment - I nearly closed this as "no consensus" but then thought consensus is still possibly attainable. As an editor I'm highly sympathetic towards historical figures such as this, but I have to ask "what makes this person worthy of encyclopedic attention?" It's been suggested the topic is notable because of the influence he had on church life, but the article says nothing about what this influence might be. Did he produce any publications, or are there any other slight indications he made lasting contributions?  If so, I'd swing my vote to "keep" even of the sources aren't incredibly in-depth, so long as WP:V is met.  However, as it stands we can verify that the topic existed and that he held the post of Dean of Connor.  Perhaps the list of deans at that article could be expanded to include a table that includes all of the scant information contained in the Cuppage article (and likewise for information historically contained in instances such as Frederick Rusk, now a re-direct.).   78.26  (spin me / revolutions) 13:37, 26 July 2021 (UTC)