Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roy C. Firebrace

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 no consensus. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:39, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Roy C. Firebrace[edit]

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

I could only find passing mentions, but no significant coverage anywhere. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:24, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:34, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:33, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:33, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Brigadier is equivalent to a general officer rank (although not itself a general officer rank) and therefore meets the criteria of WP:SOLDIER, which, while not policy, is a widely used standard for notability of military biographies. The CBE is also a high enough award to count as "a well-known and significant award or honor" under WP:BIO and has been held to be such in the past. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:54, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have you verified that he even had the CBE? Just because the article says so doesn't mean he does. There is one source in the article and it has dubious reliability. We can't have articles without reliable sources no matter how notability you believe them to be. I'm having trouble even verifying that the book source even exists. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:41, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, he was certainly a brigadier.[1][2] I'll admit I am having difficulty verifying his CBE. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:14, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[3] is R.C.W.G Firebrace. Are you sure this is the same person? IRWolfie- (talk) 21:36, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you seriously suggesting that the Roy C. W. G. Firebrace described in our article as a colonel in 1937 and a brigadier in 1946 is not the R. C. W. G. Firebrace promoted to brigadier in 1943? How many R. C. W. G. Firebraces do you think there were of this rank in the British army at this time? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:50, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What I am wondering is if the astrologer Roy C. Firebrace, is Roy C. W. G. Firebrace or not. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:59, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Malcolm Gaskill book cited in the article, published by Fourth Estate, links the brigadier with séances and the vomiting of ectoplasm, so I don't think that there's much doubt that the astrologer is the same person. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:05, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Multiple Google searches turned up nothing resembling substantial coverage in independent reliable sources. The fringe sources used for the astrology claims all fail WP:RS. Brigadier or not, the subject appears to have had a rather unremarkable and uneventful military career that receives only scant tangential mention in reliable sources. I don't think that the CBE is sufficient in itself absent substantial coverage. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 18:32, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:SOLDIER. Has one source, and given date of death, there are likely other print sources even if there aren't any Googlable ones. Yworo (talk) 22:50, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SOLDIER is an essay. And as I mentioned above, I'm not even sure the source mentioned exists, let alone it being reliable. Also does not meet Wikipedia:FRINGE#Notability: "A Fringe subject (a fringe theory, organization or aspect of a fringe theory) is considered notable enough for a dedicated article if it has been referenced extensively, and in a serious and reliable manner, in at least one major publication that is independent of their promulgators and popularizers." IRWolfie- (talk)

WP:ONLYESSAY - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:51, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Very well, I will say that I don't think being a Brigadier confers notability. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:21, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And I do. And so do many others. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:03, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So, you're admittedly making a judgement against a source without even having seen it? Strange. Well, not so much, considering you are also misusing WP:FRINGE in an attempt to exclude topics it was not intended to exclude. My interpretation differs. Obviously. Yworo (talk) 23:05, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Elaborate on how my interpretation of the above text of WP:FRINGE does not apply. If the person is truly notable, sources outside the small circle (and yes it is small) of practising astrologers would mention him. He doesn't meet WP:BASIC anyway: "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published[3] secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other,[4] and independent of the subject.[5]" Yes, I think it is dubious that it is reliable. I didn't say "it's unreliable"; The purported press it is published by doesn't exist except for publishing this very book. A publisher that only makes one book sounds a lot like someone self publishing. The source you added doesn't add to WP:BASIC. The in-universe source "The astrology book: the encyclopedia of heavenly influences" only gives a passing mention. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:46, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a source, produce it. Otherwise, your argument basically boils down to "maybe, sometime, somewhere, someone might find adequate sourcing". If you're talking about the source currently in the article, though, it does not meet WP:RS by a longshot, and does nothing to establish notability outside of the fringe community, and not even within the fringe community. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 23:39, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd already added one by the time you replied. Now there are half-a-dozen. Seriously, you two don't look too hard, do you? Cheers. Yworo (talk) 02:31, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which of the sources gives significant coverage? Identify it. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:33, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Yworo, you did a good job demonstrating how unnotable this individual is. Even after scraping together your small pile of tangential, trivial and routine mentions, you've still come up with a guy with an singularly uneventful and unremarkable military career, who was somehow vaguely "involved" in the arrest of a famous individual, and whose military experiences as a pencil-pushing, glad-handing brigadier, desk-bound during the height of the war, are vaguely "mentioned" (probably only in passing) in a couple of books on other topics.

None of this equates to significant and substantial coverage. The fact that so little can be found on this person, despite his military rank, amply demonstrates that he was largely ignored and overlooked (which, admittedly, may have been intentional on his or his superiors' part, considering his work). He MAY have actually played an important and noteworthy role during the war, but based on the sources you provided, his fifteen minutes of fame were when he served as usher and interpreter at a meeting between Churchill and Molotov, and got his picture taken with Churchill to boot. Sounds kind of sad, actually. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 10:45, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's your opinion. He seems rather interesting to me. Yworo (talk) 23:36, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I agree with Necrothesp that Brigadier Firebrace's military status meets the criteria. I don't believe that the "multiple Google searches" have been at all thorough. I found Secrets With Stalin: How the Allies Traded Intelligence, 1941-1945 (Modern War Studies) by Bradley F. Smith published by University Press of Kansas (1996). According to the index, there are 12 pages with references to Firebrace including criticism by Churchill. This is a significant, independent and reliable source. Before putting pages up for deletion, editors should check more carefully. Given how many astrology pages have been put up for deletion by editor: IRWolfie and supported by Dominus Vobisdu, I have to question whether it is Firebrace's pivotal role in astrology that falls into WP:IDONTLIKEIT. This is an Encyclopedia and it must carry notable individuals and subjects whether we like them or not. Minerva20 (talk) 19:40, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will ignore your ad hominem on me. Firstly, as pointed out, meeting an essay criteria is meaningless. The essay does not represent the consensus of wikipedians on notability. If you look at the book you will see it's a W.O Firebrace, not a R.C Firebrace. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:31, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, if you look at the book you will see that the index entry says "Firebrace, Brigadier R. C.". Here's the initial mention on page 21 and subsequent mentions simply refer to him as "Firebrace", as is normal when context has been established. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:01, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not significant coverage required for WP:GNG. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:08, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The prima facie evidence of the index, with entries for 12 separate pages, would suggest that the coverage is significant, but, by your last comment, I assume that you have access to the full text of the book and have determined that this reasonable presumption is incorrect, as otherwise it would be impossible for you to know that it is not significant coverage. Or is your approach to any evidence that doesn't support your prejudices the same as that of the quacks and pseudoscientists that you claim to be fighting against? Phil Bridger (talk) 22:43, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Calm yourself. I see what is covered by the snippets and previews through google books and see the coverage [4]. Here you can see the mentions of W.O Firebrace. You are saying the book has significant coverage, the burden is on your to demonstrate that, but it appears you haven't read it. When I did the search, I could not find the significant coverage. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:49, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Once again you are not basing your comment on facts and the evidence. I have not made an unqualified statement that the coverage is significant, because I haven't read the book, but only that the prima facie evidence points that way. You made the unqualified statement that the coverage is not significant, without revealing that you hadn't actually read it. There's no way that snippets can tell you that it's not significant, per the definition of "snippet". Playing fast and loose with evidence in this way is precisely what the supporters of fruitloopery do. Please don't start emulating them. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:02, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it was given with the unqualified statement that the coverage in the source is significant. Let me repeat the text: "This is a significant, independent and reliable source". Then it followed it with an admonishment of me and another editor. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:07, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, I did not say that. You really must start getting your facts straight. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:12, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry ad hominem was not intended. I was trying to understand why you and Dominus Vobisdu seem (in my view) to be so unreasonably determined to quibble about the notability of someone who is clearly notable on at least four counts. Firebrace was a Brigadier, who had a military career - significant enough to be criticised by Churchill, he was an author, he founded a significant organisation the Astrological Association of Great Britain and was President of the College of Psychic Studies (founded 1884). I believe WO is military terminology like Warrant Officer. There is no reference to any WO Firebrace in the index - only R.C.Firebrace and according to the author on 12 pages in what is indisputably a significant, reliable and independent source. Minerva20 (talk) 05:15, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Significant refers to the extent of coverage of Firebrace, it is not in reference to a general quality of the source itself. I'm quibbling because WP:GNG has not been met. You can not show a source where the coverage of Firebrace is of a significant amount. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:19, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Meeting the criteria of WP:SOLDIER is not "meaningless". It may be an essay, but it is a widely accepted one, meets the criteria of WP:COMMONSENSE, and let's remember that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Opinions count here, and many people consider the criteria in that particular essay to be viable. Dismissing it is foolish. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:52, 15 October 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.