Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Cranfield


 * 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. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 17:10, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

John Cranfield

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable politician, fails WP:GNG. TheKaphox  T  21:49, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * DELETE A LexisNexis search revealed three hits total for the following search terms: "John Cranfield St. Helena", "John Cranfield Saint Helena", and "John Cranfield Vilma". None provide any content whatsoever other than he attended a wedding and someone with the same name finished 47th at the Guelph Triathlon in 2014. Not a bad social calendar, but not notable. AbstractIllusions (talk) 21:17, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - Non-notable politician fails WP:GNG per nom. -- Dane 2007  talk 05:33, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:31, 8 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete politican so unnotable we have no clue what his position was.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:07, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. Article definitely needs improvement, but in this case Google is your friend — as of September 2016, he is deputy speaker of the Legislative Council of Saint Helena, making him an elected member of a legislature. Bearcat (talk) 13:43, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:POLITICIAN falls under WP:ANYBIO which still requires WP:SIGCOV in multiple reliable sources. Even WP:POLOUTCOMES still states they need to meet our notability guidelines. In doing my WP:BEFORE search I found some of the sources Bearcat found which I verify they're an elected official, but what I'm not seeing is coverage in reliable sources. I'm inclined in this case to opt for delete without prejudice for recreation if it can be demonstrated that this individual does meet GNG. Mkdw talk 07:04, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * To put this in context, Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha has a population of 7,729. So we're talking about the deputy speaker of a 15 person legislative assembly. I don't think we can automatically assume OUTCOMES on this one because this seems like an outlier example.  Mkdw talk 07:10, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Jumping in this thread, I believe there should be a presumption of official government sources as reliable. The largest concern of official government sources is that of self-publication. At the same time, there ought to be a recognition that an official source not only produces many of the facts that third-party sources rely upon, but must be trusted for certain information - as in this case, the list of current law makers. In this subject's case, there is third-party coverage (see here). - --Enos733 (talk) 05:58, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * So then what's the arbitrary population cutoff above which we grant a legislator an automatic presumption of notability because legislator even if the sourcing isn't actually in the article yet (which we most certainly do routinely do), and below which we suddenly don't anymore? Bearcat (talk) 14:50, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't be in favour of assigning an arbitrary population cutoff because I also don't support the presumption of notability without significant coverage. OUTCOMES, an essay, already states articles should be judged by their own merits. I prefer to continue to use GNG, a pillar policy, and search for sources to inform my opinion at AFD. When that search turns up next to nothing, then for the sake of AFD arguments, I'm simply noting that the relative scale of this subject may be a contributing factor to this reason. I also don't see anything special about this individual or situation that we would want to invoke the exception to the rule. If there's a consensus to keep this article with the knowledge that this person does not meet GNG, that is the right of the community to do so, but it's not a consensus I'm in favour of in this particular instance. Mkdw talk 05:29, 16 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment - interesting query by . Is there an arbitrary limit to which self-governing colonial entities are considered so small that they are de facto local governments? Bearian (talk) 16:54, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep WP:NPOL, which is not the same as WP:POLOUTCOMES, specifically states that "Politicians and judges who have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office, and members or former members of a national, state or provincial legislature" are notable. There is nothing which says that the territory has to be over a certain arbitrary size and nor should such a rule be introduced (and especially not through an AFD) AusLondonder (talk) 22:02, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * NPOL doesn't say "are notable". If you read the top of the section, it's additional criteria, and the section starts off with "" No one is using the size of the territory as the grounds for which this article should be deleted. We're saying there's NO significant coverage. It's a small place and maybe that's the reason why. Mkdw talk 02:32, 18 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep WP:NPOL. I appreciate the question of whether "self-governing colonial entities are considered so small that they are de facto local governments?," but the balance lies in favor of "self-governing" and that the effort that would be necessary to formulate an additional guideline for size of a self-governing entity. - --Enos733 (talk) 05:39, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * On what grounds of NPOL are you arguing keep? WP:BASIC is the primary criteria of NPOL which actually states this article is not notable. All the other criteria like being an elected official is seocndary criteria and without GNG is deemed non-notable. Mkdw talk 06:26, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The issue is, as one editor stated "The various SNGs exist to provide presumptions of notability in lieu of the immediate existence of secondary sources" Wikipedia talk:Notability/Archive 40. However, the policy is "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject," not secondary sources (of which government reports fall in that category). A reliable source is a source that, primarily is verifiable. In the subject's case, I do not think there is doubt among editors that the subject was an elected official, and would meet WP:POLOUTCOMES. The only question is whether the subject should be afforded the presumption of notability because we have not found any secondary source (to write about him generally? to say that he is an elected official? To publish results of an election or appointment?). In this case, there are government records of his votes, his date(s) of service as a legislative official. However, there might be a question of whether the subdivision is a local government or at the state/provincial level. - --Enos733 (talk) 07:19, 24 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Idle, hair-splitting query Can anyone speak to how other colonies have been handled? I initially misread this and thought he was deputy speaker for the group of islands, which would satisfy NPOL to me. But he's deputy speaker for legislature of only one of the three, St. Helena. If the polity in question is the UK (from our page on the question: "Because of the islands' status as a dependent territory of the United Kingdom, they are currently ruled over by Elizabeth II and her government in the United Kingdom, with the Governor of Saint Helena serving as the monarch's representative to the territory" i.e. all three islands as best I can understand it), it seems to me that the group of islands is the provincial/state level, and the subdivision--i.e. St. Helena--is a sub-provincial i.e. local government. Unless it's usually interpreted differently?
 * But backing up to try not to miss the forest for the trees. Unless there's a really firm answer on that, I'm inclined to say this is best merged and redirected to the Legislative Council of Saint Helena page until such time as a willing editor can collect sufficient sources to write more than just his wife's name, and, they went to a party one time. (I know it was an important party! As such their attendance is already covered at List of wedding guests of Prince William and Catherine Middleton.) Innisfree987 (talk) 17:17, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 16:46, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Redirect to  Chief Secretary of St. Helena.  (forgive this stream of consciousnesses edit, I was thinking this one through)  St. Helena has a population of 10, actually, 4,534.  However it is a colony that manages its own internal affairs.  I did find coverage of him in the Tristan Times,  the local paper St. Helena shares  with Ascension and Tristan da Cunha (pop. 11) Oh, never mind.  I was trying to be amusing about the size of these places, we would not, of course, keep the mayor of a town this small.  We do, however, treat heads of state as inherently notable.  Even Liechtenstein (pop. 33,720).  I  propose that we could redirect to an article on the model of Chief Executive of the Falkland Islands, with a list of incumbents.  If creator of this article or someone else is willing to take a minute to create such an article, with Falklands as a model and info provided at Politics of Saint Helena as a starting point.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:27, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think your example quite works. Looking through the list of Chief Executive of the Falkland Islands, many of the former chief executives have their own article. Even the members of the Legislative Assembly of the Falkland Islands have their own article. - --Enos733 (talk) 19:31, 30 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep per Bearcat. Ramaksoud2000 (Talk to me) 00:48, 16 December 2016 (UTC)


 * See WP:PERX as an argument to avoid. Mkdw talk 01:57, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
 * See WP:PERX: "If the rationale provided in the nomination includes a comprehensive argument, specific policy references and/or a compelling presentation of evidence in favour of keeping or deletion, an endorsement of the nominator's argument may be sufficient."
 * Ramaksoud2000 (Talk to me) 03:47, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't see the relevance since that sentence talks about the nominator's argument and you said per someone else's comment. The actual part of WP:PERX that talks about comments endorsing other comments is the part that states, "" which is to what I was referring. The link you provided literally argues against the point you're trying to make. Mkdw talk 06:31, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't see the relevance of a section titled "Per nominator" then. Maybe best to read a section before trying your hardest to disqualify other's arguments. Bearcat directly showed how it meets WP:NPOLITICIAN. No further commentary needed. Ramaksoud2000 (Talk to me) 06:36, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Do you not see the irony in telling someone to read the section when the section literally has "" as one of the examples and states "comments adding nothing but a statement of support to a prior comment add little to the discussion"? Surely you understand that sections contain sentences about many different things, but that sentence you cited literally only referred to one thing? Mkdw talk 07:03, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
 * This argument about the intent of the essay writer is silly and has no point, but when would the nomination statement include "a comprehensive argument, specific policy references and/or a compelling presentation of evidence in favour of keeping" the article? This isn't AfK. Ramaksoud2000 (Talk to me) 07:13, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
 * That sentence is only ever meant for a delete !vote that states "per nom". The section accounts for keep "per" !votes with a separate paragraph and it means that there is never a situation where a "per x" !vote is suitable in favour of keep. This is getting off-topic and it wasn't my intention to offend you. I saw your comment as an argument to avoid, as described in the essay, and I pointed it out because those !votes are often discounted in closes. I was hoping to engage in a more thorough discussion and I apologize if I offended you. Mkdw talk 07:29, 24 December 2016 (UTC)


 * No worries. For what it's worth, I added a few sources to the article to establish his political positions for WP:NPOLITICIAN. Ramaksoud2000 (Talk to me) 07:38, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm going to hat the part of the discussion that got off topic. I'll take a look at the sources. Mkdw talk 07:50, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Please focus on the viability of a merge/redirect closure, given the lack of dedicated sources
 * I don't believe you relisted this correctly because on the new relisted date you manually added exclusion coding to the day's entry. Mkdw talk 01:36, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment WP:BURDEN hasn't been satisfied here. We've established they're an elected official, but every single keep argument is relying on an argument to avoid: WP:MUSTBESOURCES. No guideline supersedes WP:GNG and WP:POLOUTCOMES is an essay . We have yet to find even a single reliable source let alone significant coverage to establish whether this individual is notable. Yes, they're elected, but we do not have a policy or guideline that states even if they have no coverage -- because they're elected we keep their article. Mkdw talk 01:42, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak keep added a number of mostly primary sources. I'm inclined to !vote weak keep. I think for any typical bio the threshold would be much much higher but I do believe establishing notability is relative. We can't expect the same level of coverage for a history academic as we would for a movie celebrity. The same is true for politicians and even more so from ones holding high levels of government in very sparsely populated centres.  Mkdw talk 07:59, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete,, Recognizing the additions that Ramaksoud2000 has made have improved the article but even for small-locality politicians the WP:GNG and WP:BIO guidelines still apply. This article lacks significant coverage in independent sources. Improvements in sourcing now raise to level of notability. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:39, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar  22:37, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment Sources do not have to be online (WP:SOURCEACCESS). We have found sources online that verify his positions as a Justice of the Peace and deputy speaker. He has certainly been covered in Saint Helena publications that are not online. Cases like this where online sources are scarce, but the politician's positions are verifiable, is the reason why WP:NPOLITICIAN exists. If WP:NPOLITICIAN is to be ignored whenever online sources are hard to find, then we should just redirect WP:NPOLITICIAN to WP:GNG. WP:POLITICIAN is a notability criterion all by itself, thus I disagree with User:Czar. From WP:POLITICIAN: "This is a secondary criterion. People who satisfy this criterion will almost always satisfy the primary criterion. Biographers and historians will usually have already written about the past and present holders of major political offices. However, this criterion ensures that our coverage of major political offices, incorporating all of the present and past holders of that office, will be complete regardless."
 * Ramaksoud2000 (Talk to me) 22:48, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * It's called a secondary criterion for a reason. Read the first line of "Additional criteria": meeting the secondary criteria is a good indicator that sources exist, such that an article can be written on the topic. But sources need to exist. I don't have a horse in this race—the editors above complained that there are no sources, and without satisfying that straightforward, policy-backed complaint, a merge compromise is the most obvious solution, as there isn't consensus to keep the article. If you have offline sources to show them, go for it. Eye close font awesome.svg czar  22:55, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Will just add a request that please, if at all possible, focus the search for additiobal offline references to sources outside Saint Helena. I'm actually a proponent of taking local sources more into account than many of my counterparts usually do at AFD, but even I think they need to be used in concert with outside attention to establish notability--if all we have is the perspective of the hometown newspaper, we really can't produce anything even close to satisfying the goal of balanced coverage described at WP:WHYN. (For clarity: I make this remark with regard to the GNG case, because I don't see a clear case being made that the subject meets NPOL, even if we were to take NPOL as an exception to GNG's requirement.) Innisfree987 (talk) 23:14, 26 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:HEY. My query not having been answered, I am convinced this is a case of first impression. Deputy speaker of a small colony is likely to be notable, and this case, he appears to make the grade. Bearian (talk) 18:50, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. Sources do not establish notability. 1292simon (talk) 23:57, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * To clarify, the article is well sourced, but the positions held by the subject do not automatically result in notability for every person who has held them. 1292simon (talk) 06:13, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Please focus on assessing whether the sources are sufficient to establish notability. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 06:45, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - The GNG appears to be met, as does WP:NPOLITICIAN - I'm assuming people haven't read the article's latest incarnation, there are 7 reliable sources now. Exemplo347 (talk) 00:00, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 06:45, 5 January 2017 (UTC) Comment To me the question is whether the government of St. Helena is more akin a subnational government (such as a state or province) or a local government (e.g city). However, if it is established that the office held is more akin to a subnational government, then my assertion is that the only source needed to meet the notability requirement under WP:POLITICIAN is confirmation that the subject serves in that office. This could come from an official government source, including, but not limited to, election results, an entry on the webpage for that office, publication of official votes, or government stationary. What is established is that the subject holds an elective office as discussed by Ramaksoud2000. I do not believe that a strict application of WP:Primary applies with verification of elected officials WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD. - --Enos733 (talk) 18:09, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Well it has its own elected government, its own constitution, can make its own laws - it's no less notable than the other British Overseas Territories and its status certainly isn't that of a "local government" - in U.S. terms, it's a State, rather than a county, with a Governor, a legislature and an executive. The population size doesn't determine notability, it's the legal status that swings it. Exemplo347 (talk) 21:21, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreed that the legal status is what determines notability. The question, though, was raised earlier by Innisfree987, who suggested that the "group of islands is the provincial/state level, and the subdivision--i.e. St. Helena--is a sub-provincial i.e. local government." I am not familiar enough with British Overseas Territories to evaluate that question. --Enos733 (talk) 22:17, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * There is no higher legislative body for Saint Helena, other than Parliament: Saint_Helena,_Ascension_and_Tristan_da_Cunha. Ramaksoud2000 (Talk to me) 22:21, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreed, there's no higher tier of government that covers that group of islands - like I said, the Saint Helena government is at the same level as, for example, the Falkland Islands government. Exemplo347 (talk) 22:54, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The Falkland Islands has one unified legislature for the whole group though, with representatives from different places. But by contrast--assuming the WP entry is correct--the St. Helena/Ascension/Tristan da Cunha group, which is one territory, has three separate legislatures. Seems like a subdivision of the territory to me. And then there's still the matter of--we really do not have enough to write a bio anyhow. Will elaborate on sourcing problems below. Innisfree987 (talk) 23:22, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The Falkland Islands does not have a separate legislature for each island in the group - if it did, I'd agree with you, but we aren't really comparing like with like. Exemplo347 (talk) 23:30, 5 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Ever since he's been established as deputy speaker of the legislative council, there has been consensus to keep because he passes WP:POLITICIAN. Ramaksoud2000 (Talk to me) 22:06, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment Per the relist request and in light of repeated suggestions ivoters haven't read the current draft, I wanted to give a rundown of the sources as they now stand. The sources in the entry plus the one I see identified here at AfD (existence of offline sources has been asserted but no citations given, so unfortunately not verifiable) are:
 * Hometown secondary sources (here "property of the St. Helena Herald"; here "serving St. Helena and her community worldwide"; and here "Friends of St. Helena", that last additionally being just a direct copy of this press release)
 * Three trivial mentions (one sentence, one sentence and not-even-a-sentence) from outside outlets.
 * Two press releases (the aforementioned and this) from the St. Helena government, which Enos rightly points out should have some standing to confirm political position, but as they're not secondary sources, they don't help with GNG.
 * To me this pretty clearly does not meet the GNG standard as regularly practiced. Innisfree987 (talk) 17:41, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure you can really dismiss every single news provider in Saint Helena as merely "hometown sources" given the fact that the nearest other place to St. Helena is across 800 miles of ocean. I know the population of the place is small but that's no reason to reject its press as not meeting the GNG. Exemplo347 (talk) 19:36, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Not trying to dismiss, just describing how I've usually seen GNG applied: in my experience, news sources from a very small place about that very small place, if not accompanied by additional, independent attention, are generally taken as insufficient to provide balanced coverage of topics in that place. For that matter, much larger outlets are, on their own, also considered insufficient to establish notability for topics in their own locale: for instance, if the New York press covered a Manhattan restaurant but no other outlets did, it might well not pass GNG. For the record, I'm fairly "inclusionist" on this question--there are people who would tell you local sources can't count toward GNG at all (e.g.), whereas I think they ought to count toward combined sources if they're accompanied by other perspectives to balance them. We just really don't have even that here. Innisfree987 (talk) 20:29, 6 January 2017 (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.