Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Hines (Staffordshire potter)


 * 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. sourcing appears to be inadequate. if anyone wants to work on this or try to refashion a combioned article about teh company and the founder in one feel free to askf ro userfication Spartaz Humbug! 07:43, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

William Hines (Staffordshire potter)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

No indication of WP:notability. Article creator and main editor has a WP:conflict of interest and appears to be documenting his wife's family history. noq (talk) 00:49, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nom. In addition: creator has a history of ignoring WP guidelines, asserting that "this person/entity is notable because it exists". Numerous editors have attempted to help him, have guided him to the relevant guideline pages and have indicated precisely what problems exist in his articles, to no avail. Simon-in-sagamihara (talk) 00:58, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete yet another COI contribution. --Simple Boba.k.a. The Spaminator (Talk) 01:41, 15 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete I don't think that Wm Hines meets the Wikipedia standard of notability on the evidence available. If we imagine a comparable businessman alive today it is unlikely that he would get in and there are no detailed biographical studies, no lasting fame for some technological or style innovation, or anything to raise him from the ranks of many successful businessmen of his time. Nevertheless, and at the risk of offending fellow editors, may I say that this does not seem to be a COI violation. 'Conflict of interest' is a legal term and has nothing to do with being interested in a topic as normally understood. WP:conflict of interest specifically encourages contributions from those with particular knowledge or enthusiasm. The author says that he has been researching his wife's ancestry, which gives him a knowledge of the subject, and the pottery long passed out of the hands of the Hines family. Aside from a very proper pride and interest in his wife I cannot see any possible motive which could be impugned. If we were apply the same COI criteria to criticise this article then we would bar everyone from writing about anywhere they had ever lived, any musician whose music they liked or disliked, and so forth. People are free to argue for that, but there is nothing in WP:COI to justify such a stance and Wikipedia would be a much inferior encyclopedia. --AJHingston (talk) 08:51, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You raise good points, AJ. I think in this case the COI issue was brought up because this particular editor contributes very little to Wikipedia beyond articles about his family members. He uploads dozens of family photos, cites "interview with Joe Blow conducted by me" as references, creates galleries on every single page he can to show off his ancestors' minutiae, etc. That's why it's been raised here, I think. Simon-in-sagamihara (talk) 08:58, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Apologies for not being clearer and thanks for the explanation. --Simple Boba.k.a. The Spaminator (Talk) 09:13, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I see. I think it better not to refer to such cases as a COI conflict - the same behaviour can be found in music or sci-fi fans, for example. My sensitivity on the point is that I have noticed a tendency amongst a few people to shout COI to justify deletion or exclude contributions on topics with which the editor is associated when the guidelines actually permit or even encourage such activity, and that can give the impression that the COI guidelines are much wider in scope than they really are. Sorry if I seemed to be picking on you, but perhaps others will read this and consider. --AJHingston (talk) 10:07, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Pushing articles about ones own family is a conflict of interest - see the section on close relationships at WP:COI, so I make no apologies for using the term. --Simple Boba.k.a. The Spaminator (Talk) 10:20, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * But this is somebody several generations distant and related only by marriage, and isn't either the normal use of the term nor is it analogous to the examples given in WP:COI. I genuinely think that trying to extend COI in these ways harms Wikipedia, because it discourages people from contributing on topics that they know about. You can say that they may not be dispassionate, and unable to take an objective view, but that is covered by POV. The big difficulty about family history articles is where the author is either unaware of the notability requirements or interprets them differently, but I would expect that many Wikipedia articles are contributed by people with a some relationship to the subject and all the better for it. --AJHingston (talk) 12:48, 15 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - The problem here is that the author is writing about a notable company through the biography of one of its founders rather than vice versa. Actually, I see just now that the article on the firm has been already deleted. This is very unfortunate, bad call... There are undoubtedly porcelain guidebooks out there that could be mustered to defend a piece on the company. Keep this article, rename it that, and source it out. Whether it is written by a distant relative is absolutely irrelevant. Carrite (talk) 15:01, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Do you know that there is something to establish notability for the company? Or are you assuming there will be? If good reliable sources can be found to establish notability of the company then an article could be written on it but this is not that. This article just says that the company existed and I'm not finding anything significant online noq (talk) 15:14, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Keep. With due respect to others:
 * Five reference books discuss this man. Other references are no doubt available (in distant pottery museums), but I shall leave this to others to investigate as I am so deterred by comments that all my work may be discarded.
 * Innovators. I would suggest that Wikipedia should identify innovators such as William Hines.
 * Distant relative. Carrite (above) says that Whether it is written by a distant relative is irrelevent. Family members (even distant ones by marriage like me) have the incentive and often the private information to contribute to Wikipedia. I perceive discouragement for this.
 * Rapid deletion. Hours of work lost - further discouragement. Comment above deplores the rapid deletion of the article that I wrote about the firm Hines Brothers. Just to explain that I believe the logical Wikipedia split is three small articles:
 * The man William Hines (the innovator),
 * The firm Hines Bros (pottery manufacturers 1870s to 1900s), and
 * The premises Heron Cross Pottery (built by Hines and still operational today).Duncanogi (talk) 11:43, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * comment Discuss or mention? The references given seem to be to trivial mentions and not significant coverage. What do you mean by Innovator? Nothing in the article shows anything innovative. As for rapid deletion - the article was a copy of this one and deleted as such - it does not take hours to cut and paste from one article to another. You have not shown that any article should exist let alone that three almost identical ones should. I am sorry that your time has been wasted but the problems have been pointed out to you repeatedly. Private information is covered by WP:original research. noq (talk) 13:38, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: Following Duncanogi’s logic, we should expect local governments not to enforce their building safety codes, because the shoddy contractor who put hours of work into putting up a house that didn’t meet regulations at all might get discouraged and stop building terrible houses. Simon-in-sagamihara (talk) 07:47, 20 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Significant figure in the history of the craft. The significance is proven by the inclusion in the standard reference books.    DGG ( talk ) 23:48, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm not seeing the significance - the references given appear to be trivial mentions and not significant coverage. noq (talk) 00:32, 23 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 06:14, 23 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep There is a notable topic here and deletion would be disruptive to the ordinary editing mandated by our editing policy. Warden (talk) 20:53, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm still not seeing any notability. There have been vague claims of innovation made in this debate but nothing specific that was innovative. He or his company have appeared in catalogues of the period but I have still not seen any evidence of substantial coverage. noq (talk) 01:50, 24 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete: I'm not seeing independent "sources address[ing] the subject directly in detail", and so no notability. Sources appear to be ubiquitously primary (www.heroncrosspottery.co.uk, birth & marriage certificates, documentation of pottery marks, etc) or mere mentions (and in most cases mere-fail-to-mentions). I'm finding it difficult to find a third-party source that even mention the man (let alone discuss him for two consecutive sentences). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:59, 24 July 2011 (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.