Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Booth (priest)

Add links
From 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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 14:07, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

David Booth (priest)

[edit]
David Booth (priest) (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)

Insufficient notability - the refs cited in the article are Crockford's, Who's Who (UK), The Times, and a church website. Archdeacons like David Booth are automatically included in Crockford's Clerical Directory, and are probably included by default in Who's Who (UK) - see WP:N/N#Are archdeacons inherently notable? for details. Two additional short mentions in The Times and supposedly on a church website (where I can't actually find him mentioned) do not amount to the "significant coverage" required by the GNG. Nor is he the subject of "multiple published secondary sources..." that would enable him to satisfy WP:BASIC. Apart from a few passing mentions of him setting up a schools' show-jumping championship and holding some services, I can't find anything else about him.

This is a test case - there are many other archdeacons in the same boat. Some of course do other things, like write profound books, or get made Bishops or Dean of Westminster etc., and thereby become more notable, but I contend that not all archdeacons - particularly not all Archdeacons of Lewes - meet our notability criteria. I wonder if "Delete and merge basic details to List of Archdeacons of Lewes" might be a suitable outcome for this article.  —SMALLJIM  17:11, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Plemth for a related case.  —SMALLJIM  17:16, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - per nom. And to be honest, I have to question whether List of Archdeacons of Lewes meets GNG as well. I would agree that archdeacons (as a class) are not inherently notable. However do need to remember that individuals who happen to be archdeacons may well be notable. So these articles will need to be reviewed on a case by case basis. Blueboar (talk) 23:53, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 13:43, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 13:43, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 13:43, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I should point out that this was actually a carefully selected test case, chosen because I think Booth doesn't quite reach the notability bar. John Plemth is the easy must-delete one, and see Edwin Ward which I rewrote and extended a bit because I think he does just clear the bar.
Regarding your further points: there's no WP guideline that says that being an Honorary Chaplain to the Queen presumes notability, so making an unsupported claim that it does won't carry any weight here - you'd need to give some reasons for that assertion. Similarly, you'd also need to explain why you think Booth's inclusion in Who's Who (UK) confers any notability instead of just ignoring an evidence-based argument that it does not.  —SMALLJIM  14:53, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Talking about where the onus lies reminded me to look over WP:BEFORE. You did see that Booth was awarded the OBE in 1944?[1] Charles Matthews (talk) 15:20, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Though interestingly that book is apparently wrong and it was an MBE.[2] Charles Matthews (talk) 15:34, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ah - you pipped me to the correction! I hadn't seen that snippet, no, though it's not wrong: "Member of the Order of..." is the full name of the award. It is in his Who's Who entry. Our article confirms that it's the lowest order and states that "no more than ... 1464 Members may be appointed per year", so perhaps it's not too significant.  —SMALLJIM  16:09, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I think the nominator makes some reasonable points. Including articles on Anglican archdeacons is not particularly harmful in a reference work, but I don't think they are all notable. The comment above about List of Archdeacons of Lewes is quite wrong, I believe. The Archdeaconry of Lewes is an administrative area, and such things have notability much more generally (traditionally archdeaconries were about the size of a county, though modern urban ones are on a different scale): i.e. Wikipedia's treatment of administrative areas and offices is much broader than of individuals who hold the office, quite rightly. As far as Booth is concerned, this one could be argued either way. I'm not seeing much to indicate notability beyond the administrative role. The chaplaincy is a decent indicator, but if someone says it is not quite enough, and it would be adequate to outline Booth on the list page, then that is also a reasonable argument. An obituary would help in deciding this one. By the way, lists of archdeacons have been standard reference material for nearly 300 years since Fasti Ecclesiae Anglicanae was published by John Le Neve, and there is no case at all for excluding them from Wikipedia. Charles Matthews (talk) 06:59, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep at present. Having gone into Booth's life, I've come up with a few things: MBE (mentioned above), and related wartime career in the RNVR and out in Alexandria; established a youth centre which still exists in some form[3], influence on others[4]. And it turns out that he was always known as Peter. So there may be a bit more to find. For example he appeared on TV with Flora Robson.[5] In any case if asked the question "was he a notable churchman?" I find it hard to say no. Charles Matthews (talk) 16:01, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nice find, Charles. How unreasonable of this guy to have a secret alias! I'd have picked another test case if I'd spotted that. However, I don't think that the few extra refs that you've discovered add sufficient notability to raise him over the bar. The new Telegraph mention is clearly trivial, The Arbour isn't an independent source; and if 78rpm.co.uk can be trusted, he appeared in three TV programs (or maybe more) in the early '60s, only one of which was apparently deemed worthy of comment (in a religious newspaper). It still isn't "significant coverage" is it?  —SMALLJIM  23:40, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, this can be argued both ways. I'm now interested in the Stepney ministry post-war: there's probably more to say about the East End in the aftermath of the Blitz, and why he had so many curates. Charles Matthews (talk) 11:12, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That would not be a proper procedure. There is {{Notability}} and the option of proposing some merges as transfer to a list (which could be reversed at a later stage without recourse to any process). Charles Matthews (talk) 09:33, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:31, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Quite - the two MBEs that I've known are definitely not WP-worthy.(original research)  —SMALLJIM  00:18, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This was already refuted without any counter-argument, above. Please explain why it makes him notable.  —SMALLJIM  00:18, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, it wasn't refuted, that I can see. -- 202.124.73.22 (talk) 06:03, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Refuted? No. Booth thereby became a member of the Royal Household, as noted in the London Gazette in 1957. The presumption that he was notable to have been considered for the post is reasonable. It is fair to say the argument is not decisive. Charles Matthews (talk) 08:29, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're putting a gloss on 202's bald statement there, Charles. If what he really meant is that after considering all the coverage in reliable sources he was finally swayed by the QHC appointment, then that's a reasonable argument. But what he actually said is the same as User:StAnselm did above: that simply being a QHC is sufficient grounds to keep the article. I had already pointed out that without giving any reasons such a statement is no use at an AfD. I was, in fact, giving them a chance to make a better argument.
Please don't get the impression that I'm a rampant deletionist. I don't think our opinions of notability are actually very far apart - you'll have seen what I did at Edwin Ward, for instance. I put these two cases up for AfD to get some clarity on the notability of archdeacons after the shortage of comment at WP:N/N#Archdeacons, and I was expecting a discussion about the pros and cons of Who's Who and Crockford's etc. as sources. Maybe I was unlucky in my choice of subjects, but the central issue is still there - if archdeacons are not inherently notable, what are we going to do about all those stubs?  —SMALLJIM  17:19, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Bearing in mind WP:FAILN, in particular "articles of unclear notability, deletion should be a last resort", one has to ask what other resorts there are. For medieval churchmen, I'd ask User:Ealdgyth for a rule of thumb. For the period 1500 to 1700 CofE appointments were much sought after and significant, and the non-notable archdeacons are there, but fairly recognisable as churchmen stuck in a provincial backwater rather than upwardly mobile. From about 1714 to the present, we have the situation that archdeacons are probably going to be well enough documented as people, but less significant in the general scheme of things. I would generally look for coverage in academic works as a positive indicator. Archdeacon Grantly, it might be fair to say, wouldn't be notable, at least as far as Trollope describes him. Charles Matthews (talk) 21:29, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that info which I'll digest. I must admit, though, that I'd find it easier to estimate the notability of Archdeacon Henry Blunt than that of Grantly.  —SMALLJIM  23:16, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I ought to mention that although my UK library subscription to NewsBank apparently includes the Times for that date, I've been unable to find anything on Booth in that issue, nor is there an obit in any paper included in NewsBank. By the way I'm pretty certain that refs 2, 4, 5, 6, 7 or 8 (in the current version) don't contribute anything to notability, so I hope you weren't including them. The report of the TV appearance does add a little, though (see above - not in the article).  —SMALLJIM  11:30, 31 May 2012 (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/David_Booth_(priest)&oldid=1137768342"