Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sir Cecil Bisshopp, 10th Baronet

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 keep. J04n(talk page) 23:00, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Cecil Bisshopp, 10th Baronet

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No assertion of notability. Members of the baronetage are not presumptively notable and the article makes no claims to the contrary. Sir Cecil married, was ordained, and then died at the young age of 28. The article claims that he helped establish Christ Church, Jerusalem but (a) that's not in the linked source, (b) the linked source is simply a list of British people who lived in Malta 1800-1900, and (c) such involvement probably isn't enough to establish a claim of notability. Otherwise the bare biographical details are in Bishopp baronets, and anyone who wants the details of his marriage can consult Debrett's. The article was previously the subject of a WP:PROD, which was rejected by Rudi2004 (talk · contribs), the article's creator. Mackensen (talk) 02:23, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. czar · · 02:51, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. czar · · 02:51, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Is documented in multiple sources and is therefore notable per WP:BASIC. There seems to be some confusion about the details though as sources such as The Gentleman's Magazine have him as the 9th baronet of that line. But AFD is not cleanup. Warden (talk) 13:26, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:BASIC requires more than simple documentation though. It requires that a person be "the subject" of multiple independent sources and the coverage needs to be "substantial" and not "trivial." Most sources don't get much beyond genealogical detail, which I'd expect for a baronet but that doesn't establish notability. The obituary in the The Gentleman's Magazine, once you cut away the gloss and puffery, doesn't go beyond what you'd find in Debrett's. Mackensen (talk) 21:06, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:02, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:52, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- I consider there is just about enough content. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:09, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think, that if re-written and better sourced, it should be an easy keep. Lots of notable people died young in those days. A merger (emphasis: not a redirect) into Bishopp baronets may also be approriate. Bearian (talk) 19:33, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. At the risk of badgering, I think it would help the closing administrator if someone explained why this person is notable. No amount of better writing and/or sourcing will make him more or less notable. Why is he notable? Mackensen (talk) 18:35, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A search under Cecil Agustus Bisshopp provides a few more links: see the second entry on this page. He also is mentioned at the Charles Church, Plymouth-article. These sources make me think that the article can be improved. So let's see if that can be done before, say, September. If the article hasn't improved then, we can give another AfD a chance.Jeff5102 (talk) 21:11, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

thepeerage is well known to me but it's a self-published source and it doesn't address the question of notability. Is it possible for us to get beyond straight genealogy? Why does this person pass WP:GNG? Mackensen (talk) 18:47, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The guideline explains why — "[the] topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Warden (talk) 20:13, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But is the coverage significant? The listings in Debretts & such don't qualify--all baronets are listed there. If such coverage is significant then all baronets are notable, which we know is not the case. I feel that we are dancing around the issue. What coverage is significant, and why? I'm not trying to be obtuse on purpose; I have looked at the same sources as everyone else and I don't what makes this young man notable. The mention at Charles Church, Plymouth is also quite trivial. Mackensen (talk) 20:31, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:SIGCOV, ""Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content.". There is no requirement for topics to be especially important. Warden (talk) 20:39, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can't accept that the sources presented meet that standard--in effect any person who has an obituary or a listing in Debrett's would meet the GNG, which cannot be the case. Even peers are considered notable not because of these things but because all peers pre-1999 were (with a few exceptions) members of a national legislature. I have been unable to find anything relevant beyond what's presented here, which in all cases amounts to no more than genealogical information and the fact that he was apparently well-liked by all who knew him. Note the second line of SIGCOV: "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." One column in one issue of The Gentleman's Magazine, 2/3 of which is devoted to a glowing and wholly unencyclopedic encomium, cannot possibly be significant. Mackensen (talk) 20:55, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

'Keep The coverage meets our ordinary requirements. 'DGG (at NYPL) (talk) 21:34, 28 May 2013 (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.