Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Victor Corkran

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 delete‎. There's a lot of discussion, but the "delete" opinions carry the day. In terms of numbers, they're in a relatively substantial majority, 5 to 2 (plus one neutral and draftify each). In terms of arguments, if as here notability is the key issue, a "keep" minority can only prevent deletion by making a compelling policy-based argument for inclusion - i.e., references to the kind of in-depth, independent, reliable coverage that GNG requires. Here, this is not the case.

As regards draftification, an ATD also proposed, there is neither consensus for it nor do I think it would be useful - we draftify stuff if there are reasonable prospects of improvement, but here it seems that three weeks of newspaper archive searches have uncovered most if not all that has been written about the subject. Regardless, if new sources are discoverd, draftification is still possible via

WP:REFUND. Sandstein 19:44, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Victor Corkran

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

Victor Corkran (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of any notability. Being a member of the nobility does not equate to notability. Sources show that he lived , that he had a family and worked as a coutier to a minor royal and that he died, but nothing beyond that. Fails

WP:GNG  Velella  Velella Talk   08:11, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility and United Kingdom.  Velella  Velella Talk   08:11, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, probably a thoroughly nice gentleman, but absolutely nothing to say about him, no sign of notability. Merely having a genealogy and existing as a courtier on the fringes of the UK's rather enormous royal family doesn't confer notability. Elemimele (talk) 09:51, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A knighthood very clearly meets
    WP:ANYBIO #1. Nobody with a confirmed knighthood has ever been deleted. He also has an obituary, albeit a short one, in a major national newspaper. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:51, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Not all knighthoods are equal. KCVO wasn't conferred as a significant honour for doing anything in particular, it was a knighthood given in recognition of service to the monarch, basically an automatic consequence of his job, a high-society version of receiving a carriage clock when you retired as a station-master. Anyone appointed equerry to Beatrice would have received this title, irrespective of what they did. We should therefore focus on whether the job is wikipedia-notable. Basically if we have nothing to say about an equerry except that they existed, it's hard to justify an article. In Corkran's case, even his obituary, which is contemporary and presumably written by someone with the information at their fingertips, struggles to say anything about him beyond that he went to school. In terms of deleting knights, we've converted consorts of monarchs to redirects based on the fact their notability, like Corkran's, is only inherited.
    It's also a very bad sign that the article is almost entirely genealogy, spending longer talking about his parents and offspring than it does about him himself. Elemimele (talk) 14:29, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not all knighthoods are equal. Indeed. KCVO is two levels above Knight Bachelor, the lowest level of knighthood! Essentially claiming it's not a real knighthood is purely your POV. Claiming his notability is inherited is patently ridiculous. He isn't notable for being married to someone notable; he received his knighthood for his achievements and service just like any other knight. Anyone appointed equerry to Beatrice would have received this title, irrespective of what they did. No they wouldn't. He was her comptroller and treasurer, the head of her household, not just her equerry. Like it or not, these people held highly influential and notable positions in the United Kingdom, hence their knighthoods. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:46, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The relationship between levels of honours, and Wikipedia notability, is rather complicated. For example, a British Empire Medal is, in honours terms, one of the lowest, but it is never awarded as a retirement present, always for doing something fairly outstanding. It is often awarded to quite ordinary people who have made themselves extraordinary by their activities, which means it's often a sign of Wikipedia notability. An OBE or MBE, on the other hand, is higher, but is often given as a retirement present to senior civil figures, and therefore (sometimes) reflects merely that they had a certain job. As a sign of Wikipedia notability, it needs to be interpreted with context.
    Again, the whole system is coloured with an inclination to give an award at a level depending on the social status of the recipient (which isn't something we need to reflect in Wikipedia; we're interested in what the person did). So, for example, if a university professor or academic stands out from the crowd, he will get a MBE or OBE (for example Alison Mary Smith), while a research assistant in the same field (for example Anne Edwards (botanist)), if they stand out from the crowd (which is much less likely, harder to do, and more notable when it's achieved!), they will get a British Empire medal.
    In Corkran's case, of course he got a high grade of knighthood, because he was working with a high grade of nobility.
    My case against an article on Corkran is simply that we have no source whatsoever to say that he did anything whatsoever (except be an equerry who went to school). What's the point in an article? Elemimele (talk) 09:18, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It is true that grades of honours often depended, and to an extent still depend, on grade of job (e.g. traditionally BEM for an NCO, MBE for a junior or warrant officer, OBE for a field officer, CBE for a colonel or brigadier, KBE for a general officer). However, it is also true that those who got higher honours were also far more prominent by the very nature of the grade of their job, so I don't think this is an especially valid argument. I think it is very hard to argue that anyone with an honour at the level of companion/commander or knight/dame is not notable. It is odd for Wikipedia to say that people are not notable when the British government considers they are; even though we are not bound by government decrees, it is simple common sense that anyone awarded this level of honour is notable in the real world and should therefore be considered notable by Wikipedia, which, for crying out loud, considers many teenage Youtubers to be notable just because they have a significant internet presence! For obvious reasons, Sir Victor did not have, but that does not mean he was not a notable person in his day and his field, which was royal administration. It is not our place to decide that one field of endeavour is less notable than another.
    Incidentally, he didn't get his KCVO as a "retirement present"; he was knighted six years before he retired and was awarded the CVO, which would also make him notable under ANYBIO, 22 years before that for being private secretary and comptroller of the household to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. And the BEM has very often been awarded as a "retirement present" after a long career of service just like any other honour; that doesn't, however, make it any less significant, as it does indeed recognise a long and distinguished career in the person's chosen field. We do not generally consider that a BEM (or MBE, OBE, RVM, MVO or LVO) meets ANYBIO simply because for the most part, with certain exceptions such as sportspeople, actors, TV presenters, etc, recipients are in careers or at grades where they do not tend to register on notability scales. That is not the case with CBEs or higher, as these are usually awarded to senior people who make a significant mark on society, even though they may not figure greatly on the internet. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:07, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    On your User Page, you say "I do not believe that Wikipedia should feature articles about completely non-notable people". That is surely the case here: what did this person, today completely forgotten by everyone apart from relatives, do to make him notable? I would go for Delete. Athel cb (talk) 13:36, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Meaning ordinary people with no claim to notability. A KCVO, an entry in Who's Who and an obit in The Times are all claims to notability. No knight or recipient of a CVO is non-notable by definition. Why do you think people receive honours? For doing nothing notable? -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:38, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:56, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 05:18, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Neutral between keep and delete. I don't see an obvious AtD. I'm taking into account both the guidance on honours in
    WP:NBIO#Additional criteria does not guarantee that a subject should be included. Rupples (talk) 16:19, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep. In addition to the pass of WP:ANYBIO (which needs to hold some weight), the decent expansion of the article proves that Corkran passes
    WP:NBASIC, which states that If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability – the many mentions of him and coverage across years of his life, as well as the nation-wide coverage of his death (some of which has some depth and could be considered sigcov imo, e.g. [2]), proves that this satisfies it. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:34, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete: Fails GNG and NBIO. Nothing found meeting WP:SIRS addressing the subject directly and indepth. Nothing to indicate this meets WP:ANYBIO, and the arguements towards such boil down to ILIKEIT, not guidelines and sources.  // Timothy :: talk  03:28, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • How does this not pass WP:NBASIC, which states If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability? There seems to be a pretty fair case for this passing ANYBIO as well. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:14, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - As I said above, this is a new page. Rupples, you say there is no obvious AtD, but draftify is available. Are people opposed to that AtD? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:07, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The case you put forward for draftify is a good one. If the article creator, who has been properly notified of this discussion, indicated acceptance, it would tip my recommendation in that direction. Rupples (talk) 09:29, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What's the point of draftifying? Its already an excellent article at nearly 600 words and contains a number of different sources that IMO satisfy WP:NBASIC (If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability); not to mention some sources that could be argued as SIGCOV and a pass of ANYBIO (which needs to hold some weight). BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:14, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    NBASIC states:

    People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.

    It is noted in the discussion above that sources are primary and that coverage of the subject is not significant. You point to one source (paywalled) which tells us of his death, confirms he was Gentleman-in-Waiting to princess Beatrice while in Spain and appointed an Equerry and then treasurer of the Household. We learn he was educated at Eton, the names of his parents and died 3 days after a serious operation. Is that SIGCOV? Well it's something. Reliable yes, secondary and independent? Well the notice was probably placed there and it is a report of death. It is not great, but even if we accepted it, it is still not multiple. I am not seeing an NBASIC pass here. But a source analysis is welcome. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:33, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    NBASIC does mention that quote, and then below it states that If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability, which is what we have here (and I'll note that the obit I referenced is
    164 words; that's SIGCOV IMO for a subject like this). The Burke's Peerage source may be primary (?), but the many newspaper refs absolutely can count towards NBASIC, given that they allow us to develop a reasonable portrait of his life, and considering that they do and that we have someone who passes WP:ANYBIO with an honor no subject has ever been deleted while possessing ... this should be kept. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:42, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    "but the many newspaper refs absolutely can count towards NBASIC". But NBASIC says

    Primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject.

    Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:33, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I haven't previously heard the interpretation that newspapers are primary sources and can't be used to establish notability; IMO that'd be a pretty drastic change from what seems to be accepted practice. Its also worth noting that the one ref notes that "he proved his business and social capacity in a way that ensured him a great popularity" – something like that would highly likely result in further coverage as well, from my understanding – not every source from 1909 is currently accessible to us. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:39, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:PRIMARY - see note d. But, in fact, newspapers as a class are not primary sources. The question is more nuanced, and will depend on the question being asked of the source. Which sources do you think are secondary? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:43, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    I don't see what's wrong with the nation-wide coverage of his death? BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:44, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just reporting his death? See
    WP:PRIMARYNEWS. A documentary of his life? that would be secondary. Something in between? Let's analyse it more closely. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:21, 2 May 2024 (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/Victor_Corkran&oldid=1221919739"