Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hicks Withers-Lancashire


 * 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 several editors are on either side of the fence of keeping or deleting and seem unlikely to come to agreement. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  19:25, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Hicks Withers-Lancashire

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Not notable, and unable to find any reliable sources for the information stated in the article. The single reference refers to the sale of a property, and does not mention anything else about Withers-Lancashire. Being present during various battles and wars is not in itself notable. DferDaisy (talk) 17:37, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:53, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:53, 31 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete lacks SIGCOV in multiple RS to meet WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 03:31, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, no suitable coverage available online. Tulkijasi (talk) 07:26, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Lack of online coverage is utterly irrelevant to notability. Especially since this man died in 1909! -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:12, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable: he had obituaries appearing in The Times, The Field and Army and Navy Gazette etc. Piecesofuk (talk) 16:42, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment. Wasn't the above meant to be a Keep vote?  RobinCarmody (talk) 17:02, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes thanks! (Added another obit from Veterinary Record journal) Piecesofuk (talk) 18:07, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Clearly I hadn't done as good a search as I thought, sorry! I didn't realise that old Vet Records were available in the Internet Archive, learning that has made me very happy! So I'll change my nomination to keep, if such a thing is possible. DferDaisy (talk) 01:02, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. Obituary in The Times. An obit in a major national newspaper has always been held to be sufficient for notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:11, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * As you well know it depends on the substance of the obituary and is not automatic. An online version of the obit hasn't been presented. Mztourist (talk) 09:29, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * No, an obit in The Times has always been held to confer notability. I can't recall any article on someone with a Times obit being deleted at AfD. And what does it being online or not matter? I can't believe you're not aware that paper sources are as valid as online ones. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:24, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Prove it, where is that stated in Notability (people)? To my understanding a minor obit even in a major national newspaper doesn't establish notability. Without knowing what the paper source says we can't confirm its existence or content. Mztourist (talk) 04:40, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The implication here is that you're suggesting other editors are lying about the existence of a source because you can't actually see it, which would of course invalidate all paper sources, set a dangerous precedent and constitute a personal attack into the bargain. I really do hope that's not the case and you didn't actually mean what you just wrote. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:26, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * You want to strike this? You still haven't addressed the policy based question, where is the policy stating that a minor obit in a major national newspaper establishes notability? Mztourist (talk) 04:56, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Where is the policy that says if a source is not online then it's not valid, as you suggested above (An online version of the obit hasn't been presented.)? What establishes your right to question another editor's integrity (Without knowing what the paper source says we can't confirm its existence or content.)? So no, why would I have any intention of "striking" my comment? -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:15, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
 * You stated that I was implying that other editors are lying which is a clear personal attack by you as I did no such thing. However I repeat, where is the policy that a minor obit in a major national newspaper establishes notability? Not one of your lists, not "when you've been on AFD as long as I have you'd know how this works" etc. Mztourist (talk) 11:41, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * So, you don't think that suggesting we need a source to be online to prove its existence when another editor has added a citation to that source in print is also implicitly suggesting that they might not be telling the truth about its existence? Sorry, but I think that's exactly what your suggestion implied. Sources do not need to be online to be valid, as I'm sure you well know. We don't need a policy; we simply need consensus, which we clearly have over many AfDs. -- Necrothesp (talk) 00:11, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * That's your erroneous interpretation of my comment. We need to see it to know if the obit is just a passing mention or a substantial account. Yes you need to provide a policy-based argument as we have a policy that "The person has an entry in a country's standard national biographical dictionary (e.g. the Dictionary of National Biography)" established notability, but WP:ANYBIO doesn't state anything about newspaper obituaries. Mztourist (talk) 04:20, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment – The obit in The Times is available here, if anyone's curious. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:02, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep per significant improvements in sourcing following AfD nomination. mgiganteus1 (talk) 01:11, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment thanks to Extraordinary Writ for linking The Times obituary. Would Keep !votes placing such importance on a Times obituary please explain what makes Hicks Withers-Lancashire notable as compared to John Burn-Murdoch or E. G. Monier-Williams listed on the same page, or can we look forward to pages being created of those "notables" also? Mztourist (talk) 05:12, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Why not? Just because they don't have a page so far does not mean one will never be written for them. If they were considered notable enough for an obituary in The Times then it would be a bit arrogant of Wikipedia editors to consider them not notable enough for an article here, especially given the numerous modern non-entities we seem to have articles on. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:33, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Having a 2-3 para obit in the Times doesn't makes anyone notable, WP:NOTGENEALOGY. Mztourist (talk) 04:56, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
 * There's no family history in the Times obituary, which focusses entirely on the subject rather than their extended family. The reference to WP:NOTGENEALOGY is therefore erroneous. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:44, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * user:Andrew Davidson page was created by an SPA, so its a reasonable presumption that its their family genealogy project. Mztourist (talk) 02:55, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
 * And? That doesn't invalidate the article if it meets notability guidelines. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:15, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
 * "And" I was responding to the comment that WP:NOTGENEALOGY is not erroneous. "And" the page still doesn't meet WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 11:41, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 03:49, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Multiple obituaries including the The Times and so the subject passes WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:57, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete - what exactly is this man notable for? The "Times" obituary makes it very clear that he did nothing that was so out of the ordinary as to make him notable by Wikipedia standards: he had a long, respectable and interesting (but not unusually distinguished) career as an army vet and a happy retirement with horses. It looks as though he got the obituary because he was present at most of the battles of the Crimea incl the Charge of the Light Brigade - one of the other obits gives more details and quotes his reminiscences. He did also invent a safety stirrup - but in the absence of a lot more information on it I don't think that's enough. As for the other claims, a "Times" obituary from the 19th and early 20th centuries is not a guarantee of Wikipedia notability, however often the opposite is asserted: saying it does not make it so. Nor does WP:ANYBIO say that multiple mediocre obituaries / sources amount to notability: it says that inclusion in the DNB or equivalent national biographical dictionary is what is required, and a "Times" obituary is not that. Ingratis (talk) 02:33, 9 June 2021 (UTC) I almost forgot WP:BASIC, wh requires "significant" coverage in multiple etc etc: multiple obituaries of a blameless but not unusually remarkable life don't = "significant" in any terms except quantity. Ingratis (talk) 02:54, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Notability is not determined by the level of achievement: "Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things such as fame, importance, or popularity". If someone is mediocre or not unusually distinguished then that's fine provided we have sources covering their life.  Obituaries in journals of record such as The Times  are fine for this purpose as they are significant coverage.  Editors' personal opinions about the worthiness of subjects are irrelevant. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:38, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:GNG: "A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject... 'Presumed' means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article." (bolding is mine). This is not a mechanical procedure - there is still a need for editors to exercise their critical faculties to evaluate the content of multiple sources to determine whether they amount to notability - and in this case they don't. As to your statement that "If someone is mediocre or not unusually distinguished then that's fine provided we have sources covering their life", what is the point of a collection of information about mediocrities? Ingratis (talk) 17:15, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Great man theory is no longer dominant and so historiography allows for the existence and importance of more ordinary folk such as Selina Rushbrook. We therefore have articles about comparative failures such as G. Harrold Carswell who was famous for his mediocrity.  We do this because this is an encyclopedia and so it encompasses most everything, not just the exceptional and extraordinary.  That is our policy.  The contrary view fails because it would require value judgement by people such as ourselves, who are not reputable and reliable sources. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:13, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Be that as it may, it doesn't really address the point that WP:GNG as quoted above, WP:BASIC summarising it, and WP:ANYBIO, all say that meeting the source requirements does not give an automatic pass to notability, just a highly likely one, and this differentiation necessarily implies some kind of further assessment despite your claim that it does not and that no further thought is required. And on further assessment, the Times obituary, and the various others he picked up by virtue of being in the army, a vet and a race horse owner, do not make this man notable - in any sense of the word - except by the mechanical box-ticking process you are outlining, which I don't believe results in an encyclopaedia by the usual definitions (yours may be different) - illustrated by User:Necrothesp above asserting with no policy back-up that everyone who received a "Times" obituary is automatically notable. (If the aim is genuinely to import every Times obituary, off to Wikisource). Ingratis (talk) 19:12, 12 June 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.