Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John ? (MP for City of York)


 * 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. Clear consensus against a standalone article, marginal consensus against a redirect given the search term issue mentioned. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:06, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

John ? (MP for City of York)

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

I redirected this to City of York (UK Parliament constituency) , but was reverted. Nothing is known about this person, not even his surname. Fram (talk) 15:30, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and England. Fram (talk) 15:30, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep This is a referenced article on a Member of Parliament, meeting WP:NPOL. We know when he served, who with, and that he served. There often isn't much more known when we are going back 700 years, but he meets our notability guidelines, and is still being written about - even though very little of the records about him have survived - 700 years later. There may be a little more to add - this article is less than an hour old. However, even if no more is added, all MPs are accepted as notable and this ahs a relaible source. Boleyn (talk) 15:37, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * What is in the article that isn't in the redirect target? It makes no sense to have a separate article which just duplicates already present into. NPOL is a "presumed" notability which should probably be revisited, just like we did with NSPORTS, to make it clear that we still need some indepth coverage, not just a "some man named John was elected in year X". Claiming that he is "still being written about" seems quite a stretch, he is listed in a table and that's it. Fram (talk) 15:46, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Regarding revising NPOL, this VP thread, started not long after the NSPORTS decision, may be of interest. Curbon7 (talk) 05:04, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete he meets notability requirements, but the lack of sources isn't enough to keep it. GNG isn't met and I don't think we'll find much if they haven't turned up in the last 699 years. Oaktree b (talk) 16:16, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * One good source is fine for someone who died so long ago - as you say, he meets notability requirements. Boleyn (talk) 16:45, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, the full content of that "one good source", that shows that he is "still being written about", is this:
 * 1394	JOHN...
 * That's it, yeah? The full sources about this John? Fram (talk) 16:55, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Meeting the requirements simply means (to me anyway) that it's ok to make an article for him, not that he absolutely has to have one. We still need sourcing for GNG or even BASIC, otherwise, it's pointless. Oaktree b (talk) 21:08, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Subjects who pass WP:NPOL do not have to demonstrate that they pass WP:GNG. Curbon7 (talk) 02:09, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
 * They have to demonstrate that they pass WP:PAGEDECIDE, which he does not. Avilich (talk) 02:13, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Fair enough with that point, but I was talking about GNG. Curbon7 (talk) 02:15, 17 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Redirect as above. Little is known about the guy, therefore - until or unless - someone does some off-wiki research to find out some more details, there's nothing to say and no point in having a page. JMWt (talk) 17:30, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Redirect as above. There is a very strong but rebuttable presumption that UK MPs are notable, and this seems to be one of the rare exceptions where it can be rebutted. History of Parliament generally provides quite detailed entries researched in a variety of primary and secondary sources, even for early MPs whose identity is not entirely certain. Those constitute SIGCOV, but a case like this, where there is no biographical article but only a list entry, seems to me much closer to a "trivial mention". Redirecting to the list entry would be consistent with John's treatment in History of Parliament and should new evidence ever arise to establish his identity this could, of course, be revisited. Choess (talk) 17:49, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Scrapes by WP:NPOL, but "articles which pass an SNG or the GNG may still be deleted or merged into another article, especially if adequate sourcing or significant coverage cannot be found". Since the coverage of John is virtually nonexistent, the best course of action here is to follow WP:NOPAGE and cover the topic in a broader article which gives it context. A redirect is not suitable since the title is an unlikely search term. Avilich (talk) 22:40, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete - There are a few issues here - for instance it could be argued that being a member of parliament in the 14th century was a lot less significant than today and thus does not make the subject automatically notable enough to have an article, although not everyone would take that view. Leaving that aside it is clear a) This individual is not the subject of significant extant coverage, which does bring his notability into question, b) there is not enough known about this individual for there to be a separate article about him. While it is right Wikipedia records that he was a member of parliament, City of York (UK Parliament constituency) does this adequately, though perhaps it might be worth adding a note that that his surname is unknown and nothing further is currently known about him. I am not strongly opposed to a redirect, but I suspect few people are likely to search for the specific title of the article, so am not sure how useful it would be. Dunarc (talk) 23:52, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Strongest possible Keep: As a member of parliament, the subject meets WP:NPOL. As far as I'm aware, judging from what someone else said in a recent AfD, an article on an NPOL#1-passing politician hasn't been deleted in a long time, if ever. Consensus has always been strong when it comes to this tenant of NPOL. I understand the point Fram is making, and they and Choess make a very strong argument, but this really opens the floodgates, particularly with comments like "". Though obviously I am very supportive of NPOL, I am not opposed to having a community-wide discussion about it; however, we should not be litigating a decade-and-a-half of consensus at a random AfD. Curbon7 (talk) 02:06, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
 * "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 general notability guideline." They alternatively need to be "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage." (albeit for historical figures, showing they were important is equivalent 107.190.33.254 (talk) 02:20, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Let's just see, does John meet the criterias? : does he have "multiple published secondary sources" mentioning him? Nope, only a database entry, he just failed that test. Then, has he received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several time? Not that we know, he just failed another test. Then, has he made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field? Not that we know, he just failed another test. Then, does he have an entry in a country's standard national biographical dictionary (e.g. the Dictionary of National Biography)? Again, not that we know, with that he has failed every criteria I could find, if you could find a second source that mentions what he did in parliament, or a better source that say, mentions that he was a minister, or close to the king, or that he had sex with the king's brother's daughter, anything at all will do, please I'd rather not lose the page, but we shouldn't be litigating 15 years of precedent to protect a random page 107.190.33.254 (talk) 02:29, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Complete logical fallacy that has virtually nothing to do with what I typed. Nice selective reading by the way: we are talking about the first bulletpoint in WP:NPOL, not the second; the local tenant applies to people like mayors, so it is irrelevant for the purposes of this discussion. Show a little respect and don't treat others like idiots. Curbon7 (talk) 02:33, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Congrats on YOUR selective reading, I never claimed that you were an idiot, don't put words in my mouth. If you could point out which logical fallacy I have used, I'd love to know. I was talking about BOTH bulletpoints (and the text that follows them), but if you want to do selective reading and ignore the "Just being an elected local official does not guarantee notability" bit, please do! Just don't claim that I'm the one doing selective reading when you do so. Can you just find another source that mentions one of the following? A)legislation he pushed for B)personal life details C)important (locally or otherwise) actions he took
 * If not, then you're admitting you have nothing but a name and a job description, which ain't much to go off of. 107.190.33.254 (talk) 17:05, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I disagree with the idea that this "opens the floodgates". The community has made it clear that notability is ultimately founded on the ability to locate significant external coverage (although what that constitutes will vary a great deal between different types of subject matter). No entity is guaranteed notability solely based on its membership within a group. I think NCPOL is generally a good SNG (at least for British figures), but as someone interested in and knowledgeable about the subject, I also think it's important to be honest about cases like this, where there's no chance at present of creating a substantive article. The people trying to launder WP:IDONTLIKEIT through specious policy arguments are going to do so regardless, but honest brokers will respond positively to people who know about the subject matter but can still regard it dispassionately. Choess (talk) 06:37, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
 * When I say floodgates, I just mean I can see a possibility that this will be used as a precedent for deleting other articles with a lot more merit, particularly with regard to modern and non-western figures, where coverage is virtually guaranteed even if we don't have easy access to it. I find Avilich's argument regarding WP:PAGEDECIDE to be incredibly convincing, but can't find myself able to !vote anything other than keep due to the implications. Curbon7 (talk) 00:34, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
 * There are no "implications" or "floodgates", since policy dictates that a local consensus cannot override global consensus. Nobody is even arguing for the removal of content: the only thing at stake here is whether the reader of City of York (UK Parliament constituency) will have a few seconds of his time wasted by being taken to an article which adds no new information. Given that this is possibly the single least covered politician in wikipedia, "other articles with a lot more merit" will encompass just about everything else, so it's very unlikely that any specific group will be targeted in any way. Avilich (talk) 04:07, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Striking my vote, as my concerns have been sufficiently sated. Big thank you to and . Curbon7 (talk) 19:00, 19 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Redirect There is a suitable page to redirect to (City of York (UK Parliament constituency)) and there is not sufficient information (at this moment) for a stand-alone page. --Enos733 (talk) 06:43, 18 December 2022 (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.