Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maynard Christian

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. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 21:44, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maynard Christian (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)

Contested PROD, which I placed as the subject is not notable and has no significant treatment or coverage. The PROD was removed per per WP:NPOL, which states that "Politicians ... who have held international, national, ... or have been members of legislative bodies at those levels" are considered notable. However I do not believe that NPOL is meant to apply in a blanket manner where there is simply nothing to say aboutthe subject and thus no wikipedia article is possible. The additional criteria section that NPOL is part of is caveated with "conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." The question is not whether the subject qualifies for an article, but whether any article about the subject can be written. On this count, the answer is no. The subject gets treatment on Waterford City (Parliament of Ireland constituency) which is correct, but there is just nothing to say about this person in this article.

This is not meant as a permanent bar. If anyone carried out a historical treatment on this person, that could be referenced and used, but as it stands, no one has seen fit to do so.

The page creator has an indef block for creating a LOT of articles that do not meet WP:V

WP:BEFORE was carried out prior to PROD. Please note that there is a mention of a bequest from this individual under the name Minard Christian. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:56, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete he might be notable, but from the people 1700s don't have much on the web and I can't find anything. Oaktree b (talk) 20:22, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Ireland. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:34, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no indication of notability, merely being an MP from the 1700s does not confer automatic notability. Spleodrach (talk) 23:58, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Literally yes it does. Curbon7 (talk) 17:58, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Notable due to WP:NPOL. There are a few mentions of him online, most substantially in the Waterford Mail - Friday 30 December 1859: "THE OLD WORTHIES” OF WATERFORD No. 1. MYNARD CHRISTIAN (Sub required). The spelling of his first name varies: Maynard, Minard, Mynard Piecesofuk (talk) 15:24, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for your edits from that Waterford Mail article. I don't have access to it, unfortunately, but I am sure the information you sourced from there is correct. There is a fine line between when a permastub is a very short but useful article and where it is an unexpandable non article, but on the basis of this information, it is likely we are moving or have moved into the former, making the discussion below moot. I wonder, however, whether that Waterford Mail article has any sources that it refers to that can expand or verify what it says. Probably not necessary re. a deletion discussion (establishing sources exist is good enough, and they don't have to be in the article). However, I doubt the article will get much attention after the discussion closes, so if we can locate anything now it would be appreciated. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:10, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  A couple of things that I found were an image of his tomb which confirmed that he was a recorder of Waterford and his date of death (although that's one day out from that reported in The Old Worthies article). There's mention in an 1833 edition of the Waterford Mail that you can view which confirms part of his will: "$100...left by Minard Christian for Clothing 6 poor persons" (it's located in the middle column about half way down) Piecesofuk (talk) 16:39, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  FindMyPast are currently offering free access until Monday for registered users so you can view the Old Worthies article at https://search.findmypast.co.uk/bna/viewarticle?id=bl/0000847/18591230/061/0003 Piecesofuk (talk) 13:15, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for the heads up on that. I have been searching those newspapers for more information, but it is scant. There is clearly a glaring error on the page as it has him matriculating in 1665, 3 years before he was born. There is a Minard Christian Rea who also hailed from Christendom (our Maynard's home according to that article) but who lived in Wiltshire. I believe that is a descendent (the dates are a century later). This one has a couple of other brief mentions but really its just one newspaper article. It's not much to go on here, but as I said, the principle here is not notability (which would be dependent on the range of sources) but whether a page can, in principle, be written, and the single source does allow for that - albeit I think there should be some concerns about the accuracy here. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:02, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: [1][2] Clearly and obviously passes WP:NPOL. NPOL is treated as an alternative to WP:GNG; that is, a politician who meets NPOL is treated as ipso facto notable, because we assume there must be coverage. Curbon7 (talk) 18:05, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  These sources verify his existence but say nothing about him. They are not significant treatment. The question is, what can you say about this person, on a wikipedia page about them, that is not already said in the parliamentary constituency page (see nomination). Also, please see the nomination text that quotes the guidelines for NPOL:conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included. We are building an encylopaedia here, and to merit an article, the subject msut be significant (and yes, per NPOL, they are), but there must also be sufficient treatment in secondary sources to merit an article. NPOL does not replace GNG, and there is no need for lawyering on it. The question is only if an article here is possible. If we can find sufficient material to suggest a page is possible, I would happily change my own view to keep, but if all we are left with is 3 sentences then this page can only be permastub - and not useful permastub, because we already mention him in the parliamentary constituency page. How does that further the wikipedia project? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:17, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not going to argue with you about NPOL. All I'm going to say is that is how we handle NPOL-passing articles (A recent example), and if you disagree, you may start an RfC at one of the appropriate project-space pages. Curbon7 (talk) 19:21, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• As far as I am aware (and I have looked at most PRODs and AfDs in the last fifteen years) no article about a confirmed parliamentarian has ever been deleted. If we were not to follow WP:NPOL in such cases there would be endless arguments about whether such-and-such politician is notable, and the arguments would mostly be conducted by partisan editors, with supporters of the politician wanting keeping and opponents wanting deletion. Is this really what we want rather than the clear-cut guideline that has held until now? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:05, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  So again, the point is not to not follow NPOL but to follow what it actually says:conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included. That is why we have a deletion discussion. The page is taken on its merits and if there is nothing that can be said about the subject, then it is not best treated with an article. If every such case is kept on the nod then clearly the guidelines are being ignored. They are there to indicate whether a subject is notable for a page but that does not mean a page can be written. It is this latter point that is key. There is no slippery slope here. If there is secondary source coverage of the person sufficient to say something about them, then per NPOL, they should have a page. It is a shortcut in the consideration. However, if no page can be written, then it doesn't matter how notable they are, the wikipedia project will NOT be improved by having a 3 line permastub. We are not talking a very short article here (which is acceptable). We are talking about an article that says nothing more than can be found already on the project in other pages. It is indiscriminate. A clear-cut guideline is not really clear-cut when it allows the majority of the pages on Wikipedia to be unexpandable stubs (and where the guideline actually cautions against that). And what is even lost here? If you delete this page, we still cover the subject to the same depth as before, and if ever a historian treats the subject then at that point a new page is easily created at a point where we can actually say something about them. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:34, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Look if you wanna have a conversation about NPOL (and that's ok btw), it's going to have to be scaled up to WP:VP or WP:N or WP:NBIO, as you're talking about fundamentally changing a guideline that has been mostly set in place since ~2005. Again, I fully respect your position (though I disagree), but an individual AfD is not the venue to be fundamentally changing guidelines. Curbon7 (talk) 02:33, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  No, I am not talking about fundamentally changing the guideline. I am talking about following what the guideline actually says (quoted 3 times now). And this is not a novel interpretation. For instance:The "keep" side has argued that the Dean of Connor is a sufficiently notable position that anyone who has held it is notable ("the position conveys sufficient notability"), and the fact that the article is a stub is not a reason for deletion. However, notability, as defined in Wikipedia, has generally been about the presence and availability of source material that gives significant coverage to the subject. While very short articles ("stubs") are acceptable, it should, at least in principle, be possible to develop the article. Very few categories of articles are considered inherently notable[3] (and to be clear, the "very few categories" is talking about places per GEOLAND because Wikipedia is a gazetteer. A whole different can of worms ;) ). Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:44, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  "Very few categories of articles are considered inherently notable" includes NPOL (Here's another example); alongside GEOLAND and NPROF, subjects meeting NPOL are "presumed to be notable" (literally per the guideline). The discussion you linked to has nothing to do with NPOL and you're trying to convey it like it does, which is borderline fallacious. Again, I don't mind having this conversation, but you're drastically misinterpreting and misrepresenting the guideline. Oh by the way, WP:USELESS is a poor argument to make at AfD. Curbon7 (talk) 09:05, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  You guideline literally says:conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included. The argument given in the above deletion discussion makes the very same case I have been making. The fact of being in a position that is presumed to confer notability is not sufficient to establish that an article can, in principle, be written. If it cannot, the page should not be created per the biograhies guideline of which NPOL forms a part.

  you have now cited two examples of cases where NPOL cases have been kept. In both cases this appears to be becaue you argued that NPOL must be read as automatically conferring notability. These can’t therefore be illustrative cases that your interpretation is correct, because in both cases you have provided the interpretation. That interpretation was accepted but you cannot be a source for your own argument.

  Please could you tell me why the guideline I have cited 4 times now, or the argument from the closer in the Dean of Connor case (that the principle that an article can be written is key) do not maatter. Note “NPOL makes them notable” is explicitly not a valid argument because, again, the guideline quoted specifically caveats NPOL as I said in my opening statement. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:43, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  At this point, we're not gonna get through to each other. You've made your arguments, I've made my arguments; let's just agree to disagree and let other participants make a determination. Curbon7 (talk) 18:09, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I've updated the article based on the newspaper article I mentioned above. There's more detail I could have included but not too sure if it was too much Piecesofuk (talk) 10:45, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks and see my reply to you above. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:11, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Curbon7. Passes WP:NPOL as having verifiably served as an elected official of a national legislative body. Sal2100 (talk) 20:26, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. As I said above, our practice has always been to keep articles on members of national legislative bodies. Our guidelines are supposed to be descriptive of what we do rather than prescriptive, so if that conflicts with the guideline then the guideline needs to be changed. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:47, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Passes WP:NPOL. Verified as serving as an MP. --Enos733 (talk) 22:24, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep foemer MPs or incumbent MPs are defult notable per WP:NPOL. Taung Tan (talk) 17:16, 10 November 2022 (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.