Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Raymond Evelyn Stansfeld


 * 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. There's a lot of unhelpful argument, and precious little analysis of the sources. I am unaware of any convention that the mere existence of an obituary grants notability, and in the absence of written guidelines saying as much, that argument contributes nothing to consensus in either direction. The Times source is one reasonable source (with some questions about its substantiveness); the other sources have not been explicitly evaluated in a way that shows GNG is met. I could relist this discussion, but it is has already become quite unpleasant; thus I am closing this as "no consensus", explicitly with no prejudice towards speedy renomination. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:17, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

John Raymond Evelyn Stansfeld

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Was deprodded with the rationale, "already some okay sourcing, perhaps could be improved?" That "okay sourcing" consists of 3, listings, a primary source, and 3 non-reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG, and even if WP:NSOLDIER woud not have been deprecated, would not have met that. Created by a COI editor, delete as per WP:NOTMEMORIAL.  Onel 5969  TT me 23:47, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 07:01, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 07:01, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

I considered, before I created this page, whether the person would be considered notable enough - and I thought so given rank, DSO and sources.

I had no wish to 'memorialise' anyone - I am not related to the person. I wanted to create pages only for 'notable' people (because I didn't want any deleted).

Can I mention more about the sources - 'a primary source and 3 non-reliable sources' doesn't explain them properly.

1. A history of the family in which the person is mentioned (secondary using primary sources).

2. Rutland remembers, a website mentioning the person and grave location. (https://www.rutlandremembers.org/fallen/718/stansfeld-lieutenant-colonel-john-raymond-evelyn).

3. Website citing primary sources about the person (https://www.soldiersofthequeen.com/SouthAfrica-JohnRaymondEvelynStansfeld.html).

4. The person's Who's Who entry (https://www.ukwhoswho.com/view/10.1093/ww/9780199540891.001.0001/ww-9780199540884-e-191178).

5. & 6. Website on Craven's part in the War - citing primary sources about the person (https://kirkbymalham.info/KMI/malhamdale/servicemen/jrestansfield.html and https://cpgw.org.uk/soldier-records/john-raymond-evelyn-stansfield/).

7. Commonwealth War Graves Commission website (https://www.cwgc.org/find-records/find-war-dead/casualty-details/167193/STANSFELD,%20JOHN%20RAYMOND%20EVELYN/).

The above sources (1, 3 and 5/6) use primary sources.

This person was notable enough in his own lifetime to be in Who's Who, was a Lt-Colonel, has a DSO, saw action in Boer and First World Wars and has a Commonwealth War Grave.

Sorry I don't have any more secondary sources to cite and cannot improve it any more but I do not believe that this page should be deleted.

Hiltpriam (talk) 07:58, 19 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete fails WP:BASIC. Who's Who is not the Dictionary of National Biography Mztourist (talk) 10:42, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Does it fail? I never said WW was the DNB. Is it not even a 'stub' level page - at least - to give others a chance of improving it? Even though there are lots of other pages for soldiers who don't even have the DSO?

If you're all desperate to delete it then that's that.

Sorry it's not good enough, I tried the best I could. Hiltpriam (talk) 12:45, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep I think he should be kept as he has an entry in UK Who's Who which is used to determine notability and is one of the Wikipedia Library Partners https://wikipedialibrary.wmflabs.org/partners/76/ Piecesofuk (talk) 19:13, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , can you please point to the policy/guideline which says that?  Onel 5969  TT me 02:11, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:ANYBIO "3. The person has an entry in a country's standard national biographical dictionary (e.g. the Dictionary of National Biography)." links to the Biographical Dictionary article which states that a "biographical dictionary is a type of encyclopedic dictionary limited to biographical information. Many attempt to cover the major personalities of a country (with limitations, such as living persons only, in Who's Who, or deceased people only, in the Dictionary of National Biography). Others are specialized, in that they cover important names in a subject field, such as architecture or engineering." Piecesofuk (talk) 04:21, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Who's who is not the Dictionary of National Biography which is the UK's standard national biographical dictionary as required to meet WP:ANYBIO 3. Mztourist (talk) 08:14, 20 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment I've added The Times obituary as a reference from 4th October 1915 Piecesofuk (talk) 17:47, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. 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) 10:16, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * During World War I there would have been many thousands of obituaries in The Times so without knowing what the obit says that argument is not in any way conclusive. Mztourist (talk) 11:00, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Death notices, yes. Obituaries, no. Different things. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:04, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , hi. Can you point to the guideline which says that a NYT obit is sufficient for GNG?  My father had an obit in the NYT.  And while I'm proud of him, knowing WP guidelines, he would not pass WP:GNG.  Onel 5969  TT me 21:21, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Not a guideline, but certainly longstanding consensus at AfD that an obit in a newspaper of record is sufficient. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:37, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Even an obituary is not sufficient without knowing what it says. As noted on another discussion there is a WP:GLOBAL bias on WP towards inclusion of every minor British noble. Mztourist (talk) 04:42, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Per WP:SOURCEACCESS, we should not dismiss a source due to not being able to retrieve its contents. NemesisAT (talk) 07:28, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Precisely. And doing so when another editor has added it is tantamount to saying that you do not take that editor's word as to its existence or content, which is a clear breach of WP:AGF and a borderline breach of WP:NPA. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:35, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The Times obit is behind a paywall so not accessible to those who don't have a subscription. Spare me the sly accusation of personal attacks, which is explicitly what you are doing. A completely non-notable officer who died doing his duty, just like 744,000 other Britons Mztourist (talk) 06:45, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * So what if it is behind a paywall? Do you also discount citations to print books because you can't read them unless you own them or have access to a library they're in? Have you even read WP:SOURCEACCESS? -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:12, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Because you and others claim that a Times obit is a pass on notability and so given the lack of SIGCOV in multiple RS I would like to see what the Times obit actually says. Mztourist (talk) 03:38, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Two things are worth noting about Necrothesp's contributions at AfD: (1) they always vote keep, and (2) they are chronically and systematically dishonest in their claims about consensus. I think that their votes should be disregarded by closing administrators in general, but particularly in cases like this one where the basis of their vote is a straightforwardly false assertion. --JBL (talk) 21:29, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
 * You have just contravened WP:AGF and WP:NPA. Well done. Accusing me of dishonesty is not acceptable, exceptionally insulting and completely untrue. I have been here a long time. I know what is consensus and what is not. Where is your evidence that I have ever been dishonest in claiming consensus? I really have no idea what has provoked this attack on my integrity, but I would ask you to withdraw these allegations immediately and reconsider your attitude towards other editors. And yes, I almost always vote keep when I do contribute to AfDs. Simply because I believe in live and let live and usually if I don't specifically think an article should be kept (and there are many I don't think should be) I don't contribute to the AfD and leave it to the growing legions of deletionists to get it deleted if they so desire. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:11, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * What is the problem with a user always voting keep? I don't believe that should be held against them and am not sure why you're bringing it up. NemesisAT (talk) 21:31, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry for not being clearer. In the absence of dishonesty, (1) would not be important.  But the dishonesty is more apparent in light of (1) -- someone randomly claiming false consensus for things would be behaving weirdly, but someone doing it systematically is doing something worse than being weird (in my opinion).  --JBL (talk) 21:43, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Once again accusing me of dishonesty. Skating on very thin ice here aren't we! -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:11, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Also, FWIW, you almost always vote delete. Should we discount your opinion too? NemesisAT (talk) 21:36, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
 * That's ... not actually true. (You are being misled by the fact that I often, as here, contribute to AfD without voting, and the tool doesn't take that into account when computing percentages.  You can see a moderately complete list of my AfD contributions here -- in the first section you'll see the 48 articles I have proposed or nominated for deletion, and in the second section you will see 52 delete votes, 15 keep votes, 34 comments (including this AfD), and 14 other votes (merge / redirect).) --JBL (talk) 21:43, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
 * But, more seriously: if you believe that I am systematically dishonest in my votes, you should please point this out and ask administrators to discount my votes for that reason! --JBL (talk) 21:52, 27 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep, referencing has been improved since nomination with the Times obituary mentioned above. A well-written article with adequate sourcing, exactly the kind of content we should be encouraging on Wikipedia in my opinion. NemesisAT (talk) 19:12, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment I've added a couple of more recent references about his involvement in the Battle of Loos from the Scotsman and the Aberdeen Press and Journal Piecesofuk (talk) 17:53, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * To be clear they're newspaper reports of a commemorative display put on by his family and so inevitably self-serving. Mztourist (talk) 03:42, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * They both appear to be WP:SIGCOV from newspapers. I don't think it's fair to dismiss them, IMO they help establish notale. NemesisAT (talk) 07:06, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26  (spin me / revolutions) 13:40, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: I found this mention in a newspaper, and this in the Times, isn't significant coverage though. — Berrely  • Talk∕Contribs 15:07, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree that these obviously do not contribute anything to notability. --JBL (talk) 21:33, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: Also would you mind pointing to me where that Times obituary is? I've looked over page 6 and can't find anything. I've uploaded the whole of that issue to the Internet Archive (direct). Is it possible you could say the column? Courtesy pinging  and  —  Berrely  • Talk∕Contribs 15:38, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * It's about half way down the fifth column, headed "COMMANDER OF THE 2ND GORDONS" Piecesofuk (talk) 15:44, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * God, I'm blind. Thanks. — Berrely  • Talk∕Contribs 15:46, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * User:Berrely thanks for posting that, I think that very brief obit does not establish notability. Mztourist (talk) 12:36, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Necrothesp do you seriously believe that Stansfeld and presumably everyone else listed on page 6 is notable because of these Times listings? What about those listed on page 1 or don't they count because they weren't officers? Mztourist (talk) 04:10, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * You obviously can't tell the difference between death notices (just an announcement of death) and obituaries (a summary of the deceased's life). Or the difference between other ranks and officers (given all those who have death notices on page 1 are officers as well!). No, not everyone listed on page 6 is notable, because many are simply death notices. -- Necrothesp (talk) 07:07, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * So you believe that everyone on page 6 satisfies notability? Mztourist (talk) 07:38, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * You really do not read comments before firing off an answer, do you? -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:11, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * To clarify you acknowledge that page 6 contains a mix of death notices and obituaries, which just shows the importance of actually being able to see the relevant newspaper to determine whether the person's entry is a simple death notice, a more substantive obituary or something in-between. You claim a consensus that notability is established by an obituary in a major national newspaper, but what then amounts to an obituary? You claim that its "a summary of the deceased's life", well most of those listed in columns 3, 4 and 5 of page 6 would satisfy your definition, I cannot accept that they all satisfy notability. Mztourist (talk) 11:16, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * If you compare, you will see that Stansfeld's entry is considerably more substantial than most of the others, which may list parentage, birth, education and/or marriage, but little or nothing about their career. I would agree that the former are not sufficient for notability, but I believe his is. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:10, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Obituary is defined as "a news article". There is absolutely no possibility that all those listed in columns 3, 4 and 5 on page 6 were independently researched, verified and written by Times journalists. This is supported by the fact that at the top of column 3 it states "the Times would be obliged if relatives of officers who fall in service of the country would forward with the intimation of death any biographical details in their possession". So these are not Obituaries in the accepted sense. Such notices cannot confer automatic notability because they are not reliable and independent. Mztourist (talk) 04:43, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The obituary that illustrates the English Wikipedia article for obituary is of a similar length and of similar content to Stansfeld's obituary in the Times: who he was, how and when he died, and brief family and career details. Piecesofuk (talk) 16:47, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * As you know anyone can add a picture and caption to Commons and to a page, it doesn't prove anything. The second paragraph of Obituary states "Two types of paid advertisements are related to obituaries. One, known as a death notice, omits most biographical details and may be a legally required public notice under some circumstances. The other type, a paid memorial advertisement, is usually written by family members or friends, perhaps with assistance from a funeral home. Both types of paid advertisements are usually run as classified advertisements." Mztourist (talk) 08:45, 8 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment - thank you for providing the pdf, and the very specific placement on page 6. With that in mind, clearly this is not a very detailed NYT obit, using the rationalization above, there are dozens of soldiers KIA who would be granted automatic WP notability.  Onel 5969  TT me 17:10, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I see no problem with that. After all, there is no size limit for Wikipedia. It is not a paper encyclopedia. NemesisAT (talk) 22:35, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with User:onel5969. That obit doesn't establish notability. Mztourist (talk) 12:36, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
 * NYT? No, it's The Times! -- Necrothesp (talk) 07:09, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * His death was reported in the NYT and other US newspapers at the time, for example in the Washington Evening Star he was one of the four names listed amongst the "many prominent officers" who died https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn83045462/1915-10-04/ed-1/seq-3/ Piecesofuk (talk) 10:33, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * His name is mentioned and The Washington Star wasn't a national newspaper or the paper of record so that's not significant coverage is it? Mztourist (talk) 11:20, 28 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep agree per Necrothesp's fact per above discussion. VocalIndia (talk) 04:55, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Is that the fact that's definitely a lie, or some other one? And which of these relate to our notability guidelines? --JBL (talk) 10:24, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
 * above comments clearly based on WP:IDONTLIKE. 😀 shame ! VocalIndia (talk) 10:44, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
 * And also breaches of WP:NPA and WP:AGF. Accusing another editor of lying? Shame, as you say. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:19, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
 * And what do we call claiming a consensus that "obituaries" in The Times are the basis for notability when the "obituaries" do not satisfy the accepted meaning of Obituaries as is the case here? Mztourist (talk) 06:45, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I've already said I disagree with that assessment. But in any case, I have only said that there is a longstanding consensus that obituaries in The Times are considered to confer notability, which is absolutely true and most certainly not a lie. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:48, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * As I have pointed out above the "obituary" for Stansfeld does not satisfy the definition of Obituary as a news article. Your whole claimed consensus falls apart because these WWI "obituaries" aren't even Obituaries. Mztourist (talk) 14:41, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * How does the consensus fall apart because you don't agree that this one is a proper obituary? WP:IDONTLIKEIT. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:10, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Even if such consensus exists, Stansfeld does not meet that consensus because his Times "obituary" is not an Obituary in the accepted sense of being a news article. Presumably most of the other Times "obituaries" from WWI also do not meet the definition of Obituary and so your claimed consensus falls apart as a basis for claiming notability for Stansfeld and anyone killed in WWI and memorialized in The Times. Now you can either explain why you believe that Stansfeld's entry is a news article satisfying the definition of Obituary or you should acknowledge that it is not an Obituary and so is not a basis for notability. Mztourist (talk) 15:40, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Already fully explained. Not rehashing what I've already said. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:04, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * No you haven't fully explained why Stansfeld's notice is a news article satisfying the definition of Obituary, you've just decide that it is an obituary and hope that other Users buy your assertion that a mention in The Times satisfies notability. Mztourist (talk) 04:36, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Regardless of whether The Times piece counts towards notability, the other newspaper articles do IMO. I disagree with your analysis that they are "self serving". NemesisAT (talk) 07:10, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * They are reports of a display put on by his descendents, so of course the display and reports of it are self-serving. Mztourist (talk) 11:15, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * A newspaper has chosen to cover it, so the reports are not "self serving", I believe they are independent, reliable, and meet the requirements for GNG. NemesisAT (talk) 08:51, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Local hero/human interest stories over 100 years after his death. Where was the coverage when he was alive or in the immediate aftermath of his death? Mztourist (talk) 09:53, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
 * GNG doesn't specify the time of coverage. You seem to be going to great lengths to try and dismiss valid sources, and moving the goalposts. NemesisAT (talk) 10:26, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The centenary of WWI led to renewed interest in the topic which resulted in numerous trivial stories, including those about Stansfeld. He had no sustained notability in his life or death or in the 100 years after. A couple of stories about a display by his family don't change that. Mztourist (talk) 14:41, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
 * If there is "renewed interest in the topic" and journalists are writing about it, then we should cover it. And actually, there were multiple stories during his life and after death. There evidently is WP:SUSTAINED notability here. NemesisAT (talk) 15:56, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * I have a subscription to The Times so if someone wants to provide me a link to whatever it is you're looking to verify, I can do so (and generate a non-paywalled link valid for 7 days). Please ping me if replying with a link as I am unlikely to see this otherwise. Stifle (talk) 11:21, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * - there was a link provided above, just below the first relist, the second "Comment", and two lines below that is the specific location in the pdf was provided.  Onel 5969  TT me 01:59, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   12:20, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, those are not links to the Times, but something that has copied it, so I can't assist. Stifle (talk) 08:14, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Enough detail with a suitably diverse collection of references — GhostInTheMachine talk to me 10:41, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep The obituary in The Times plus the other sources signify a pass of WP:ANYBIO, WP:BASIC and so WP:N. Policies such as WP:ATD, WP:NOTPAPER and WP:PRESERVE clearly indicate that deletion is not appropriate.  I am finding that there's plenty of scope to expand and improve the article and our policy is that "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." Andrew🐉(talk) 21:05, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Meets WP:GNG and for reasons cited above.  WP:Preserve  7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 21:19, 8 August 2021 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.