Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Raymond Evelyn Stansfeld

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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)[reply]

John Raymond Evelyn Stansfeld

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

John Raymond Evelyn Stansfeld (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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:NOTMEMORIAL. Onel5969 TT me 23:47, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

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)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 07:01, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]


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)[reply]


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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
    • Piecesofuk, can you please point to the policy/guideline which says that? Onel5969 TT me 02:11, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • Comment I've added The Times obituary as a reference from 4th October 1915 Piecesofuk (talk) 17:47, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Death notices, yes. Obituaries, no. Different things. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:04, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply
    ]
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)[reply]
They both appear to be
talk) 07:06, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • So you believe that everyone on page 6 satisfies notability? Mztourist (talk) 07:38, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • You really do not read comments before firing off an answer, do you? -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:11, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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. Onel5969 TT me 17:10, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I see no problem with that. After all, there is no size limit for Wikipedia. It is not a paper encyclopedia.
    talk) 22:35, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
NYT? No, it's The Times! -- Necrothesp (talk) 07:09, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • Keep agree per Necrothesp's fact per above discussion. VocalIndia (talk) 04:55, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
above comments clearly based on
WP:IDONTLIKE. 😀 shame ! VocalIndia (talk) 10:44, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
And also breaches of
WP:AGF. Accusing another editor of lying? Shame, as you say. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:19, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply
]
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)[reply]
Already fully explained. Not rehashing what I've already said. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:04, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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".
talk) 07:10, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
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)[reply]
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.
talk) 08:51, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
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)[reply]
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.
talk) 10:26, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
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)[reply]
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
talk) 15:56, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:20, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Keep Enough detail with a suitably diverse collection of references — GhostInTheMachine talk to me 10:41, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The obituary in The Times plus the other sources signify a pass of
    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)[reply
    ]
  • Keep Meets
    WP:Preserve 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:19, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/John_Raymond_Evelyn_Stansfeld&oldid=1038158084"