Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Henry Spencer Law


 * 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Enos733 (talk) 15:44, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Henry Spencer Law

 * – ( View AfD View log )

No indication of notability. Only sourced to Burke's peerage and an obituary of one of his non-notable sons. A BEFORE brings up nothing except WP:CIRCULAR. JBchrch  talk  08:44, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  JBchrch   talk  08:44, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.  JBchrch   talk  08:44, 21 July 2021 (UTC)


 * KEEP He was Private Secretary to the First Lord of the Admiralty in 1846 and President of the Board of Control - notable!Looking glass 563621 (talk) 08:49, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * disclosed on WP:COIN that he has an external connection with the Law family.  JBchrch   talk  13:44, 21 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep. I have added a citation of his obituary in The Times. An obituary in The Times (or another major national newspaper of record) has always been considered sufficient for notability. This consensus has been established over many AfDs and many years. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:42, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:47, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:47, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:47, 21 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete fails WP:BASIC. The assertion regarding an obituary in The Times is unsupported, it depends what the obituary says. Page is more about his much more famous relatives (including his brother the First Sea Lord) than him. Mztourist (talk) 10:52, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * What does this mean? That the claim of a consensus is unsupported? Rubbish. The consensus is very clear that a full obituary in The Times is sufficient. Or do you mean that because you can't read it you don't believe it exists? I would remind you that sources do not have to be available online. They merely have to exist. I have stated it exists and provided a citation to it. So what precisely is your argument? -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:04, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Could you provide links to AfD discussions that establish this consensus? Honest question, I would be happy to learn. JBchrch   talk  13:36, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Here are just a few examples: Articles for deletion/Roger Morris (engineer), Articles for deletion/Thomas Blanco White, Articles for deletion/Mary Somerset, Duchess of Beaufort, Articles for deletion/Sydney Cope Morgan, Articles for deletion/Kenneth Fisher (educationalist), Articles for deletion/Chandos Hoskyns (British soldier), Articles for deletion/Kenneth Tempest, Articles for deletion/George G. Imeretinsky, Articles for deletion/Maurice Ash, Articles for deletion/Herbert Griffiths, Articles for deletion/Aline Mackinnon, Articles for deletion/S.J. Goldsmith. There are many more. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:51, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for providing these links. I am not convinced, however, that the outcome of each one of these discussions relied solely on the publication of an obituary in The Times, although it is certainly an indication of notability (which I'm not objecting to, of course). In any case, I don't think that such a policy would not conform to WP:GLOBAL, since it distinctly favors Britons. JBchrch   talk  17:20, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Once again a consensus/policy is claimed when it does not exist. I certainly agree with the inherent bias of a claim that a Times obituary establishes notability. Mztourist (talk) 04:36, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Why does it favour Britons and why is it inherently biased? It is quite clear that this consensus relates to any newspaper of record, not just The Times. And I didn't say that the keep results there solely relied on the obituaries, any more than consensus has to be unanimous to be valid (although some editors mistakenly think or claim it does). But in all of them it was clearly a major element in the result. This is just another attempt by deletion-orientated editors to claim a consensus does not exist when one clearly does. As usual, I find it very sad that some editors are so keen to argue that an article on a clearly notable person who held notable positions clearly supported by reliable sources should be deleted. That mentality in people supposedly working to build an encyclopaedia, I'm afraid, escapes me. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:46, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * As usual, I find it very sad that some editors claim a consensus or policy when it doesn't exist and are unwilling to accept that some minor British noble just isn't notable. Mztourist (talk) 06:41, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * There is some hindsight bias in using old British newspapers as references and considering them "papers of records". Aside form their great political bias, a great many newspapers have come and gone since The Times was first published (just see here). If The Times had gone under in the 1800s and wasn't considered a paper of record 150 years later - would we consider Law notable on the basis of this one article? Probably not. My !vote is still keep though as unfortunately I have to live in the world as it is. Vladimir.copic (talk) 07:03, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * It clearly does exist. You just don't like the fact it exists. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:06, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * You claimed that SOLDIER was a policy... Mztourist (talk) 03:44, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * No, I never said that, as you very well know. I said it was generally accepted as a notability guideline. Which it most certainly was before you and others decided you didn't like it and strenuously campaigned to get it deprecated to assist in your deletion campaigns. Please try to avoid misrepresenting what other editors have said. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:54, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * It was only ever an essay. If you want to avoid misrepresenting what other editors have said then start with not misrepresenting that I "strenuously campaigned to get [SOLDIER] deprecated to assist in [my] deletion campaigns" when I did no such thing. Mztourist (talk) 12:48, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
 * An essay which was generally accepted as a notability guideline! It doesn't matter how much you claim it wasn't. It obviously was and I have proved it was over and over again. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:14, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. I've done some work and this article is now sourced to six sources: two substantial sources (Burke's, and The Times obituary, now linked) and several other good quality sources that support and build on those two. There will undoubtedly be other reliable sources not easily accessible online given the age of the subject. The most recent ones did require a specialist subscription to find, so no criticism to the nominating editor here, but overall I think this is pretty decent sourcing for someone who died well over a hundred years ago. ninety:one 11:59, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * But, the sources added are just public records with no form of significant, in-depth coverage (see WP:BASIC). It's simply the 19th century equivalent of Martindale. JBchrch   talk  13:29, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The sources which I added relating to his appointments are as you describe, yes. The Times obit and his Burke's Peerage entry are not - they constitute "significant coverage in multiple, published reliable secondary sources". A third would be nice, but for someone from that era I think that's a solid pass of the BASIC criteria. ninety:one 14:12, 21 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Weak (and reluctant) Keep The Times obituary (which I have now read) does provide some notability although its content contradicts much of the information on this page (obit. says he's 4th son, this page says 5th, Edward Law, 1st Baron Ellenborough implies 3rd) and doesn't reflect the extensive record of public service that this page speaks of (I think these claims being true are essential to its notability). Unfortunately I am now discovering the inherent bias of WP's guidelines which reward British nobility (WP:GLOBAL) who really have no notability themselves but were born into the right station. Part of this birth right was being named and feted in the publications of the day which are now considered papers of records. Hard to believe a similarly distinguished member of the Bhutanese royal family (for example) would be considered notable. Either way I would really recommend that editors look at thoroughly vetting this page and all related pages edited by Looking glass 563621 who has a close familial connection to the subject and Ellenborough Barony. Vladimir.copic (talk) 23:48, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I completely agree with your critique of the inherent bias here. Mztourist (talk) 04:36, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Subject appears sufficiently notable, with the above comment noted. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  05:24, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Meets GNG with sufficient sourcing, such as the obituary. ~ EDDY  ( talk / contribs )~ 01:07, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep the article has been significantly improved with additional reliable sources references so that WP:GNG is passed. VocalIndia (talk) 05:03, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep, as there is enough sourcing to meet GNG, including the Times obituary.Jackattack1597 (talk) 11:00, 28 July 2021 (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.