Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert J. Davies, Cwrtmawr

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 Keep 15:42, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Robert J. Davies, Cwrtmawr

Robert J. Davies, Cwrtmawr (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No references, and couldn't find any extensive coverage in reliable sources. Jinkinson talk to me 00:01, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 00:01, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 00:01, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Article was sourced by creator. WP:GNG applies. For people of his era, this constitutes significant coverage-- someone wrote about him in a book. There may not be much available to Google. The information we want may be rotting on some shelf in a library somewhere. Dlohcierekim 21:48, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
While I share your view, and have been trouted for sharing too openly, not everyone is as good at citing sources as we are. Also, some still feel this is a collaborative effort, and that helping source an article is part of the fun. Dlohcierekim 09:38, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No assertion of significance, not a single footnote. Not ready for prime time. Delete without prejudice to recreation if any sourcing can be located. Closing administrator should offer to userfy the article for the content creator if they so desire. Carrite (talk) 05:41, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, I did offer. Dlohcierekim 09:34, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge? - There is mention of Robert Joseph Davies [1] in the Dictionary of Welsh Biography, but he falls under his father who I believe is far more notable, being a leading figure in the Calvinistic Methodist faith. Robert J Davis claim to notability is that he was a Calvinistic minister and was the treasurer of their General Assembly, which is yet to have an article. It may be better that we follow this example and create an article on Robert Davies, who could easily be linked to Calvinistic Methodism, and then lay mention to Robert Joseph as his son. FruitMonkey (talk) 07:35, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Eh? That speaks of Robert Jones. Or have I just demonstrated my ignorance of the Welsh? Dlohcierekim 09:48, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, wrong site, I work off the actual book and made a bad jump. It's corrected now. FruitMonkey (talk) 17:36, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The creator has assured me that sourcing will be forthcoming. As it is now "tomorrow" on the far side of the Pond, I wait with eager anticipation. If not, will switch to "delete". If I had some idea of how to search Gale for this subject, I'd try. Dlohcierekim 09:32, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sources have been added to the article. Dlohcierekim 15:32, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does being a Treasurer of the Calvinistic Methodist General Assembly count as being notable under WP:GNG or WP:BIO? Because other than that I see a failed candidate for MP, and a county counselor. Under WP:POLITICIAN I'm not sure county counselor qualifies (it's certainly at least one level below state representative) and the only press coverage appears to be in the same local newspaper? Neonchameleon (talk) 18:23, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If not, there are several hundred, at least, entries which should be considered for deletion. Puzzled as to why there is such enthusiasm to delete this!! Macs15 (talk) 19:43, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like WP:OSE. Jinkinson talk to me 20:11, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No. Common misconception. Important decisions are made by WP:consensus. This is not a vote. It is a discussion from which consensus will perhaps emerge. Dlohcierekim 00:42, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Democracy is not necessarily about majorities. Consensus, however, either requires agreement OR acceptance of differences. I see no reason why this article in its current form should be deleted.Macs15 (talk) 01:08, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment WP:GNG is a threshold you need to pass with the default being that most people don't, as per WP:BIO. In his case he definitely doesn't meet WP:POLITICIAN - he was only elected to local office (and definitely fails the Historical Record test of books). A footnote in the biography of his father doesn't go far to establish notability (although it does for his father). Which leaves the attempt to establish notability resting on three newspaper articles in his local paper and a single short paragraph that mentions him fundraising for someone else's memorial. Honestly I doubt that it would have been nominated for deletion in the state it is currently in, but when it was first posted and nominated it looked like a Whac-A-Mole piece of spam that just makes Wikipedia look bad. Had it been me and I'd found that page I'd have just WP:PRODded it or even nominated it for speedy deletion using WP:A7, both of which are extremely useful for removing spam and pointlessness but can easily be dealt with by improvement (there is no way this article as it stands now would be in danger from a WP:A7). Instead it was given the full WP:AFD treatment despite being only three minutes old (which is questionable practice due to the time required to run the checks involved in WP:BEFORE). And once it gets into that state with no references, the best way out is by improving the article (see WP:HEY for details). So in my opinion it took two decisions I wouldn't have made and some bad luck to bring the article to the scrutiny it's receiving (the first being to post two lines and the second being to run a full scale AfD). Unfortunately it's here now and it's the article in front of us to be judged so it's receiving closer scrutiny than anything short of a featured article, and more dangerous scrutiny than featured articles do. The research and writing that have gone into the page has been excellent so far as I can tell - and it's mostly bad luck he appears to be both here at all and on the wrong side of the notability threshold. Neonchameleon (talk) 03:22, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:42, 7 December 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Robert_J._Davies,_Cwrtmawr&oldid=1146666816"