Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Tripp

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. Both those supporting deletion and keeping make reasonable arguments that are plausibly based in policy (implicitly WP:DEL-REASON#8 for the deletion supporters, and WP:ANYBIO#1 for those supporting keep). Consensus is ascertained in light of the quality of the arguments presented in this discussion as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy. And, as the arguments were of relatively similar strength, there is no consensus in this discussion. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:25, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

George Tripp[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)

Nicely researched genealogical piece, but not notable. Ingratis (talk) 08:23, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:42, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Police-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:42, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails WP:NBIO and WP:GNG; search in Google News and Google Books found a few obituaries and news articles of different people of the same name. Toadette ^{(Merry Christmas, and a happy new year)} 10:46, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Recipient of the CB, which we have always held to easily meet the criteria of WP:ANYBIO #1 (which is a CBE or above). Chief administrative officer of one of the most significant police forces in the world. Only someone with absolutely zero knowledge of the subject would think this was merely a "genealogical piece". Very clearly notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:39, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: a clear case of asserted inherent notability. a) The only source that refers to Tripp's job, which is the only reason for his posited notability, is the book by Fairfax, which the article's creator himself describes as unpublished - don't think that counts. All the other sources are entirely genealogical - census returns (unreferenced), a parish register entry, civil registration indexes and a probate entry - and equally available for anyone in the country: they are bog standard pieces of genealogical information and certainly don't go to notability. b) Police civil officials are not inherently notable; come up with proper sources for this man. c) "we have always held [CBs] to easily meet the criteria of WP:ANYBIO #1": I have no idea who "we" are; again, actually provide some proper sources. ANYBIO specifically says: "People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included'." (bolding mine). If no adequate sources are forthcoming, the rest is just handwaving and the article should go. Ingratis (talk) 14:38, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[continued below the relisting line]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Ingratis (talk) 14:46, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:42, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

- - "We" would be the Wikipedia community, as illustrated here. It's called consensus. If he was considered notable enough to receive a high honour by the British government, then he is clearly notable enough for Wikipedia. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:18, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    - You should not need reminding that notability rests on sources - but since apparently you do, see WP:N. Where are the sources? Ingratis (talk) 03:53, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      - No, I don't, but thank you for the patronising comment. You should also not need reminding that Wikipedia works on consensus, which I have illustrated. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:29, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        As to "patronising", people in glass houses... As to the rest, you're apparently arguing that because this man had a CB (as per WP:ANYBIO#1, if that were to cover CBs) the article is exempt from the sourcing requirements of WP:BASIC. I've already pointed out that this article presently contains only a single secondary source, which is invalid, because it is unpublished; all the rest are primary sources/original records, which without the secondary source do not add up to SIGCOV. Even if this were a clear instance of "automatic" notability - such as those covered by NPOL - it would not stand without the appropriate sourcing, which this does not have. (Your lists, in my view, are missing the point: articles have to be considered individually, as they will not always be decided solely on the ANYBIO issue, as you seem to suggest). Ingratis (talk) 13:55, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        One of the reasons we have ANYBIO is that it would be laughable if Wikipedia considered people who had been granted high honours in the real world to be non-notable. Clearly notable in the real world, but not in the rarefied atmosphere of wikiworld, where the only people considered notable are those who have sustained coverage on the internet! It really does just make us look like we live on another planet. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:04, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        To be frank, show us sourced about a monkey that took a selfie [1] and it get's an article here. Wining the award is fine, but we need things that talk it about it at length. We don't have much that talks about the person here that isn't related to him or the award presenter. Oaktree b (talk) 15:41, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:ANYBIO #1 - agree with Necrothesp here. Lightburst (talk) 15:11, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 14:36, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NotAGenious (talk) 14:43, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Chief financial officer of the police is fine, but not terribly notable. I don't see extensive coverage (or much of anything) on this person. Civil servant that won an award. Oaktree b (talk) 15:43, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There are only a few hundred of the higher members of the order, almost 2000 of the lower level (as this person was), so it's a rather long list. We'd need a ton of sourcing to create an article on a Companion-level individual. They give out so many of these, it seems most names are only mentioned, then onto the next name. Oaktree b (talk) 15:46, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Won an award. It's being appointed to a high honour, not winning an award. They give out so many of these. They really don't. A couple of dozen at the most every year. Not many in a country of 60-70 million people. There are only a few hundred of the higher members of the order, almost 2000 of the lower level (as this person was)... The statutes provide for a maximum of 1,925 Companions at any one time. That doesn't mean there are 1,925 Companions at any one time (or even close to it)! But even if there were, it's a drop in the ocean considering the population of the country (or, in those days, the entire British Empire). And the "lower level" of the Order of the Bath is a very high level indeed. It outranks pretty much anyone else who doesn't have a knighthood. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:04, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Then provide us with extensive sources with which to build the article. For all of the 10 lines of text, that's not extensive coverage at all. That's my issue, the lack of sourcing first and foremost. Oaktree b (talk) 17:55, 23 January 2024 (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.