Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexander Mitchell (Scottish entrepreneur)

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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:22, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Mitchell (Scottish entrepreneur)[edit]

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

Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG. The one source cited cannot be verified (broken link) but would apparently only establish that the subject won a Territorial Decoration, a military medal for 20 years of service that would not be sufficient to establish notability under WP:SOLDIER. Googling and searches at newspapers.com turned up nothing useful. Msnicki (talk) 14:03, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 10:43, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment He's in Who Was Who[1] but I'm not sure if that's enough to show notability. I don't think he's notable as a soldier. But Luscar Coal is still going and has some online coverage, so maybe his business interests can be covered somewhere. Colapeninsula (talk) 15:29, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Who's Who is not sufficient to demonstrate notability. The entries are basically self-published. Msnicki (talk) 06:31, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, seems to be a member of a notable family but lacks WP:SIGCOV for himself. EricSerge (talk) 00:23, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Who's Who is significant coverage. How many times do you need to be told this? Every bloody time it seems, and we need to explain to Americans what Who's Who is and that it's really not a scam. Also, Times obituary, please pay attention. And meets WP:SOLDIER for service leading a battalion in wartime service. Le petit fromage (talk) 06:00, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Who's Who is not a reliable source for establishing notability. From http://www.print.ukwhoswho.com/more_whoswho, Each biographee supplies the original information for their entry and is then sent an annual proof for updating. Our editors also monitor the press and other sources of reference for day-to-day changes and additions. The information contained in a Who’s Who entry is essentially autobiographical, its integrity and accuracy ensured by constant independent research. Also, you're wrong, the subject does not meet WP:SOLDIER. He did not command a battalion in wartime service. He led a regiment. WP:SOLDIER presumes notability for anyone who commanded a "substantial body of troops in combat" where a substantial body is defined as division or larger. A division is several regiments. Msnicki (talk) 06:31, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Precedent says you are wrong. Also, Times obituary (that's The Times, not the New York-imposter Times). Le petit fromage (talk) 07:22, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So you say. But that certainly isn't the precedent I've observed in AfDs. Can you point to a discussion at WP:RSN where there was a consensus that Who's Who can be used to establish notability? (I'm pretty darn sure you can't.) As for the Times obituary, did you try clicking the link? It's broken. I searched newspapers.com and could not find it. It's impossible to know if the obituary even exists, much less what it said. There's no possible way we can write an article based on a vanity listing in Who's Who and an obituary that may not exist. Msnicki (talk) 12:56, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've told you: Who's Who is categorically not a "vanity listing". Le petit fromage (talk) 13:12, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And I've answered. Cite a discussion at WP:RSN or can it. As for the "don't be stupid" edit remark on your claim, let me it put it this way: I think you're full of it. Msnicki (talk) 13:22, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. A few things relevant to the disagreement above. (a) The British Who's Who is certainly not self-published in any way; people are invited to be in it. Yes, they write their own bios, but these are verified, it's not a vanity club and they don't pay to be in it. Being selected for inclusion is good evidence that the individual is significant in British public life. However, it is generally considered at AfD that while it is a good start as to indication of notability, additional proof is generally needed, as particularly in earlier editions people were often included just because they were members of the landed gentry (who were, of course, considered to be notable at the time, but not so much now). (b) He commanded a cavalry regiment, which is indeed the equivalent of an infantry battalion in the British Army (the British equivalent of a non-British regiment is a brigade). Command of a battalion or regiment is, however, not sufficient to prove notability. (c) An obit in The Times is certainly proof of notability - this has always been held to be the case at AfD. However, Mitchell only got a brief notification of death, not a full obituary, which makes him borderline at the most. (d) Please take note that a source doesn't have to be visible on the internet for it to be valid. Print-only sources are entirely acceptable and nobody should be suggesting that because they're not immediately visible to everybody they're somehow invalid. The Times archives are actually available online, but only as a subscription service, although this is available for free through most British university and public libraries. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:56, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't accept Who's Who as evidence of notability even if it is the UK Who's Who. They clearly state that the entries are written by the subjects, making them clearly WP:PRIMARY, even if they are reliable. And it's not clear they are reliable. They claim "integrity and accuracy ensured by constant independent research" but the only research they seem to promise is that they "monitor the press and other sources of reference for day-to-day changes and additions". But we didn't find anything in the press or other sources and I doubt they did, either. So what they published was likely written in entirety by the subject and probably received zero independent fact-checking to see whatever the subject claimed could be supported by other sources. You might not call that a vanity listing, but I do.

Re: the obit in the Times, since you claim to know how to find these things, did you do that? Of course print sources count and not all sources have to be online. But it does have to exist. I searched at newspapers.com, which has archives of the Times covering that period and nothing turned up. I could not find it. I am not convinced this source exists. I am certainly not ready to agree that an obit that defies attempts to find it and may not even exist is sufficient to establish notability. If you can find it and summarize it, I will, of course, accept your word. Msnicki (talk) 13:47, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What you accept isn't really relevant, since Who's Who is generally regarded as a reliable source by most people with any knowledge of British biography and citations from it have always been regarded as reliable on Wikipedia. In fact, it's the standard reference work on British biography for those who are still alive (and for most of those who are dead, since the Dictionary of National Biography, which does provide automatic notability, is far, far more selective than Wikipedia). In any case, we're talking about notability here. Since the subjects don't put themselves forwards for Who's Who, how is the manner in which the entries are written any indicator as to their notability? The fact they've been selected in itself indicates a level of notability. Re The Times, yes, clearly I did find it, given I said it was "a brief notification of death, not a full obituary". I think most people would agree that the official Times Digital Archive might be a little more reliable than newspapers.com (and I think the implication that if it's not findable on that website then it obviously doesn't exist is a little odd)! If you want chapter and verse, the notice of Mitchell's death (actually more concerned with the value of his estate, since he died four months before) appeared on Saturday 2 March 1935, p.4, at the top of column 6! There was a very brief announcement of his death (with no real details except his name) on the day after his death itself. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:16, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:33, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It's been asserted that an entry in the British Who's Who is commonly accepted as evidence of notability at AfD. I don't think that's true and asked if there was a consensus to support that claim at WP:RSN. No one's volunteered a pointer to any relevant discussion, so I decided to ask the question myself, here. Msnicki (talk) 17:32, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lacks sufficient sources to write a sensible article. The sources that do exist are not significant coverage. Clearly not notable, failing GNG.--ℕ ℱ 17:48, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete. An ordinary rich man. No multiple coverage cited to extablish anything outstanding about him. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:48, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
delete Who was Who for me provides a presumption of notability (I suspect only those unfamiliar with the UK volumes would doubt that) though their selection criteria are too snobbish for my liking. The people included are independently selected, unlike, I understand, the similarly-named US books. However, there seems to be too little referenced material for even a brief biography and it is clear that the article originated from genealogical material which may well never have been published. I think too little content is verifiable though I have added references to WwW. If there is a decent source for his career then I reverse my !vote. Thincat (talk) 17:05, 19 July 2015 (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.