Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alan George Sholto Douglas-Pennant

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. Stifle (talk) 14:26, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alan George Sholto Douglas-Pennant[edit]

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

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

Son of a British Baron who did not succeed to the title. He served as a lieutenant in the British Army during WWI and was killed. A search reveals numerous passing mentions of his death (the most substantial of which appears to be a paragraph in The Welsh at War: From Mons to Loos & the Gallipoli Tragedy (2017)) but no significant coverage to satisfy WP:GNG or WP:BIO. Dumelow (talk) 13:37, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Dumelow (talk) 13:37, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Dumelow (talk) 13:37, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Dumelow (talk) 13:37, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is ample respectable coverage to verify the facts and so WP:GNG is passed. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:09, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Andrew, thanks for commenting. Could you provide some examples of the coverage? I could only find passing mentions in online sources - Dumelow (talk) 14:15, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The source that is linked in the nomination is adequate. That's not a passing mention but addresses the subject in substantive detail, verifying numerous biographical facts. It further highlights the fact that the subject was one of the first members of the Welsh aristocracy to fall during the war. When we see that the Imperial War Museum has a detailed and carefully curated entry for the subject too, it is apparent that WP:SIGCOV is passed and so therefore is the WP:GNG. I daresay I could find additional sources but they are not needed for this discussion. My !vote stands. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:40, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think we disagree on what counts as significant coverage (I feel the paragraph in The Welsh at War falls far short), but that's fine. Could I ask what coverage you found at the IWM? I could only find this page, which is a brief description of a photograph in their collection? Thanks - Dumelow (talk) 15:16, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This issue of significant coverage vs passing mention explains much of the confusion about notability. To me, a passing mention is a tangential aside. But if the material is specifically about the subject and verifies facts then it objectively counts as WP:SIGCOV. Our guidelines do not specify a minimum word count and editors have consistently rejected the idea that they should or that the guidleines should be made into rigid policies.

My impression is that some editors expect a topic to be so detailed that it is capable of being made into an FA. But that is an unreasonable requirement because FAs contain far more material than readers usually want from a reference work. In my experience, many encyclopedias such as The London Encyclopaedia commonly have brief entries with just a few long, discursive feature articles. Readers of such works tend to want succinct entries which can be found easily and read quickly. Long, compendious articles are usually too long for a reference work and so are not what we should be aiming for. That's true for paper-based reference works and also for modern devices such as smart phones and smart speakers.

Anyway, the IWM entry to which I referred already appears in the article and so it seems telling that the nominator has not read this. Perhaps this short article is already too long. And note that the IWM entry has six different tabs so it's effectively six pages.

My !vote still stands.

Andrew🐉(talk) 17:44, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll say no more because I don't want to give the impression that I am badgering you. I was looking for an "carefully curated" IWM page, Lives of the First World War is an excellent resource but it is partly automatically generated (eg from medal cards and the CWGC database) and partly user generated (eg from genealogical records); you can see who has added what in the "evidence" tab. LotFWW has 7.7 million+ entries, pretty much every identifiable British serviceman of the war. There's a great biography of Douglas-Pennant on there but "NEIL116261" cannot be considered a reliable source - Dumelow (talk) 18:55, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dumelow is welcome to keep going. I much appreciate their DYK articles such as banging out or Hyde Park pet cemetery and so am interested in their contrary position here. And notice that while the content in question might be locked away from public gaze, this discussion will be kept online indefinitely and so our words will not be wasted. Note the futility of creating a page that does not add to the encyclopedia in order to remove a page that does.

As for reliability, it does not seem that the facts are in dispute here – there are no red flags and sources such as IWM seem backed up by numerous primary documents. The nomination seems to be purely a matter of status; that such a brief life history is not wanted. I'll happy grant that the article is not vital but, now that we have it, what is the benefit of making it inaccessible to readers? There are no BLP considerations or other pressing reasons to delete. No space will be saved by the supposed deletion as the page won't actually be removed; it would just be flagged as for-admin-eyes-only. Dumelow is an admin and so will still have access. Why do they wish to deny it to the rest of us?

Andrew🐉(talk) 20:50, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacks SIGCOV in multiple RS necessary to meet WP:GNG, numerous passing mentions as a minor noble don't pass that threshold. Mztourist (talk) 14:49, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Andrew. Randy Kryn (talk) 19:01, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks any assertion of notability and significant coverage above routine, brief mentions. The IWM source mentioned above has "more than 7.7 million Life Stories" that are contributed as a sort of wiki and is decidedly not a reliable source or one which establishes notability, unless such genealogical resources are notability for millions of veterans. Reywas92^Talk 19:41, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning for Delete I feel the paragraph in Welsh at War is possibly more than a passing mention but it is only one RS. The IWM content seems to be user generated or otherwise a collection of primary source information that could be found for most soldiers of the time. I'm not convinced it is a RS. Zawed (talk) 01:44, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails NBIO. Assertions of HEISNOTABLE are not backed by sources. The only claim for notability he has is being born into a noble family, that is not enough. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:08, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Briefly merge to Baron Penrhyn. The life expectancy of a junior officer in WWI was about a fortnight. There were 1000s of officers casualties, and he is NN. The article on the title might mention that this man did not succeed because he was killed in WWI and he might be named (but indented) in the list of holders of the title, as a heir apparent who did not succeed. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:26, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Mztourist and Zawed. I'm concerned that an admin would see a paragraph in a book and a user-generated source as proof of notability. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 21:34, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above delete comments. Zin Win Hlaing (talk) 08:57, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. The sole Keep vote above does show SIGCOV and there is no real claim of notability that satisfies any guidelines. There are not enough mentions put together to meet BASIC and ANYBIO is not met either. Being noble does not make an individual notable, same for almost holding a title. // Timothy :: talk 09:15, 11 March 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.