Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hugh Howitt

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 merge and redirect to Smoking in England - (NAC) - frankie (talk) 21:57, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hugh Howitt[edit]

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

Nominated on behalf of User:Christian1985 per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 June 18. I am neutral.—S Marshall T/C 21:16, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep. Perfectly good article. Notable in the context of the smoking ban, verifiable, encyclopedic. Robinh (talk) 21:26, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I feel Hamish Howitt is not of any national or even local significance to warrant a WP article. We don't give local councillors or other campaigners a WP page so what makes Hamish so special. This has nothing to do with my views on his campaign, I genuinely feel he is not of any significance or notability. Christian1985 (talk) 22:22, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I remain neutral, but I think some guidance might be in order here.
If I were arguing "keep", then I would say this: On Wikipedia, there is an objective test about whether or not something is notable, which is called the general notability guideline. Hugh Howitt would be notable, for Wikipedia's purposes, if there were significant coverage about him in reliable sources. The BBC is a reliable source, and the coverage is here and here. The Scotsman is a reliable source, and the coverage is here. The Blackpool Gazette is a reliable source, and the coverage is here. The Publican is a reliable source, and the coverage is here. Also, not cited in the article, the Manchester Evening News is a reliable source, and the coverage is here. Therefore there is significant coverage in reliable sources, so Hugh Howitt is notable.
But if I was arguing against keeping the article, I would point out that this is a biography of a living person. We have clear rules about those, and one of the rules talks about people who are only notable for one event.
So this AfD needs to consider questions like: What are the sources really about? Are they about Hugh Howitt, or are they about an event with which Hugh Howitt was involved? If we ought to have an article about the event rather than the person, then should we delete the article we already have, or would it be a better idea to convert it into a redirect to the event article?—S Marshall T/C 22:41, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hugh Howitt is only 'famous' for one event. He launched an unsuccessful campaign of disobedience of the smoking ban, I hardly feel this warrants a WP article. He should maybe get a short mention on the smoking ban article but not a full WP article. The references are all about events connected to Howitt and his campaign. I move that the article be deleted and redirected to the smoking ban in England article. Christian1985 (talk) 22:47, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That leads me to ask two questions. First, why would you redirect Hugh Howitt to smoking ban when smoking ban doesn't mention him? That's not helpful to our readers. And second, why would you delete the material before redirecting it?—S Marshall T/C 22:58, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(later) Oh, I see you meant redirect to Smoking ban in England. But that doesn't mention him either, except as a "see also" which would need to be removed if Hugh Howitt were deleted.—S Marshall T/C 23:00, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point, well maybe a small section mentioning Howitt should be added to the Smoking ban in England article and then the Howitt article deleted. I can add a small section now eventhough personally I don't feel he should be WP altogether Christian1985 (talk) 23:03, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I feel as if we're making progress. What you seem to be proposing is called a smerge: a selective merge from one article to another. That's a good idea because you would be keeping the reliably-sourced content, in accordance with our policy at WP:PRESERVE. (There are very few circumstances when it's appropriate to remove reliably-sourced content from Wikipedia and I don't think this is one of them.)
After a smerge, though, if we delete the original article, then how will we be preserving attribution? All of our content is licenced under the CC-BY-SA and the GFDL, so the people who wrote Hugh Howitt are entitled to be credited as the author of the material. Normally we would do this by preserving the article's history under a redirect to Smoking ban in England. How will we do it if we delete Hugh Howitt before redirecting?—S Marshall T/C 23:11, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have created a small Howitt section in 'Opposition to the ban' on the Smoking ban in England and I have copied over the references so it is still sourced. I agree with redirecting Howitt to the Smoking ban in England article, I feel this is a feasible compromise. But either way I feel the Hugh Howitt article should be removed. I don't have any objection to crediting it to the original authors that seems fair enough. Christian1985 (talk) 23:14, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the circumstances, this debate could technically be closed. (Technically, the close would be "speedy keep". WP:SK ground 1 applies: now that Christian1985 has moved his position from "delete" to "merge", nobody participating in the debate thinks that Hugh Howitt should be a redlink.) I suggest that this isn't done quite yet, so as to give Robinh a chance to come back and comment on the merge proposal before it becomes a fait accompli, and so that other editors may participate if they're so minded.
If the merge does go ahead, then I suggest the paragraph could be expanded a little, so as to allow the BBC sources to be used.—S Marshall T/C 01:44, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak delete~~- there looks to be some serious WP:BLP1E issues here. I say weak because, if the article could be reworked and/or merged to be about the event, I would be more than willing to change my mind. But as is, I just don't think it has encyclopedic value. Umbralcorax (talk) 01:54, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I see now merge discussion has already been taking place above. Consider my vote for outright deletion withdrawn. Merge works. Umbralcorax (talk) 01:56, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Smoking in England (which already mentioned the topic), but remove/source unsourced material before doing so. WP:BLP1E clearly applies, as all (cited and Google News) sources appear to explicitly mention the smoking ban in their titles. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:48, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- How about keeping the section in Smoking ban in England and including a 'main article: Hugh Howitt'? Howitt isn't really famous for just one event: it was an ongoing series of events including appearances at court and an orchestrated campaign of civil disobedience. There was even support from other anti-smoking-ban activists (whose names I've forgotten). Admittedly all this was occuring in the context of the introduction of the smoking ban. It's very pleasing to see a civilized discussion. Best wishes, Robinh (talk) 08:31, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I created a paragraph on Howitt from the original article in the Smoking ban in England article. I see no justification for keeping the Hugh Howitt article. I feel the mention in the smoking ban in England article is all he warrants. I stand by my earlier view the Hugh Howitt article be deleted. Christian1985 (talk) 10:34, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Robinh: I think you're reading WP:BLP1E too narrowly. Regardless of whether it is strictly a single event -- or a closely-related-series of events, Howitt lacks notability independent of the topic of Smoking in England, so this article should be merged/redirected there. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 10:41, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as something of a technicality. I think there is adequate coverage to meet the notability guidelines and the coverage deals with sufficiently diverse activities by the individual to avoid BLP1E. However, Howitt is not at all important as an individual in my view (though he is wiki-notable) so an editorial decision to merge some of the material into Smoking ban in England would be sensible. The present article history should be kept in these circumstances and a redirect would achieve this. I would also like to comment on how constructive this discussion has been and it has also introduced me to the idea of WP:SMERGE! Thincat (talk) 10:58, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So do we agree the Hugh Howitt article should be merged into Smoking ban in England and the full article deleted? I am reluctantly happy to accept a compromise on this and I feel that is a workable solution. I completely agree with Hrafn above. Christian1985 (talk) 16:08, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No. If Hugh Howitt is merged into smoking ban in England then I am opposed to the subsequent deletion of Hugh Howitt because of the contribution history aspect. Hugh Howitt should not be converted to a redlink. It should be converted to a redirect to Smoking ban in England. Although both outcomes mean that the current text is hidden, the "redirect" outcome means the history is kept.—S Marshall T/C 17:48, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I follow you, I am perfectly happy to accept that, redirecting Hugh Howitt to the Smoking ban in England, that would be fine with me, shall we press ahead with this action? Christian1985 (talk) 17:57, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In view of what Robinh says below, there is (as of this moment) no reason why any uninvolved editor can't close this debate as "merge". I would do so myself, except that I feel my participation in this debate stops me from being "uninvolved".—S Marshall T/C 21:00, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per Thincat; I agree that some material should move into the smoking in England article. No prejudice against reviewing this in a year or two to see if this person's marginal notability is maintained. --John (talk) 16:19, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
redirect works for me. My interest is in strongly-held beliefs being ground down by The System. You can't fight city hall, and all that. Perhaps we could have a list of people who tried to fight City Hall and lost. And in Howitt's case, there is the added fascination that there was essentially zero popular support. And people who undergo this process are interesting. So, redirect is fine so long as we retain the ability to document Howitt's part in this phenomenon (and we also keep open the possibility of a main article: approach if the material grows enough). Kia Ora, Robinh (talk) 20:30, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All's well. We can document Howitt's part in the resistance to the smoking ban in England to the extent that reliable sources cover it, and if reliably-sourced information about other events in Howitt's life were to surface, then per policy, a main article could indeed be created again.—S Marshall T/C 21:00, 19 June 2011 (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.