Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseph Blakesley

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 speedy keep - nominator withdrew (non-admin closure)‎. St Anselm (talk) 17:35, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Blakesley[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)

Very few refs on page for many years. Nothing much to suggest notability. Also apparently incorporates text from another encyclopedia, which doesn't seem good. JMWt (talk) 05:39, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Christianity, and England. JMWt (talk) 05:39, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

JMWt, see the assessment of tertiary sources in general at WP:TERTIARY and a discussion of the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition's reliability in particular at Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition#Public domain. Tertiary sources can be used to establish notability and they can be used with care as sources but they are definitely not preferred.

The Encyclopædia Britannica series has been around for two centuries and generally viewed as one of the best (if not the best) encyclopaedias

The 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition is unreliable for the many things that have changed: aereoplanes, relativity, plastics, etc. For historical topics, the concern is that interpretations of history may have changed: Reconstruction after the American Civil War, the Boer War, etc. Also, archeology or the discovery of old texts: Dead Sea Scrolls, Norse colony in Newfoundland, etc.

I think in this case, we're pretty safe. Looking at the Wikisource copy: 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Blakesley, there's little interpretation done - basically a short factual article with no ideological bias. Blakesley died just 24 years earlier, so there weren't archaeological discoveries to be made. There's no science or technology. I think it's a solid ref for this particular article.

I don't find this article especially interesting or compelling but it is encyclopaedic. Blakely was notable in 1911 and by our rules, that means he still is today.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 06:26, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are two issues. First if we can use encyclopedia for notability, second if we can incorporate text.

On the first I disagree that we can assume that Britannia 1911 uses the same criteria of notability as we do. At the time it was focussed on minor British personalities and does not necessarily give the sibstantial coverage we need.

But even if we do accept it as a reliable source to show notability, we need at least 2 others.

On the second issue, I do not believe we should be "incorporating text" from other encyclopedia even if it is from 1911. JMWt (talk) 06:33, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Looking at Google Books, it looks like Blakesley was frequently quoted back in the day: [1] That page of search results doesn't establish notability but it does indicate that Blakesley was a 19th century "influencer".

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 06:35, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You make interesting points -- I'll come back to them tomorrow. I appreciate your thoughtfulness about our content.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 06:37, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

He wrote letters to newspapers. If that is the criteria for notability, there are hundreds perhaps thousands of others who could be included on the same rationale. JMWt (talk) 06:38, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think we can presume that any article in the 1911 can have an article here. It's no strecth to imagine that there is a second reliable source about him somewhere. In addition, deans are generally (but not necessarily) notable - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Wall (priest), for example, and the Dean of Lincoln article: we have an article on every Dean since 1722. But he would possibly be notable just for his works on Aristotle and Herodotus. St Anselm (talk) 16:00, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Lots of priests below the level of Bishop have been deleted at AfD recently. Fwiw. JMWt (talk) 16:24, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I think this is the same person [2]. Oaktree b (talk) 16:20, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I can't open your link but there is also a substantial section on someone who sounds like the same person in this book.

I appreciate it appears that I'm now arguing against my own nom, but sometimes it is worth continuing to look for sources. JMWt (talk) 16:32, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, looks like a SNOW. How do I withdraw a nom? JMWt (talk) 16:37, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just say that you withdraw, and someone else will close it. St Anselm (talk) 17:13, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. I withdraw JMWt (talk) 17:27, 10 November 2023 (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.