Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Henry Corbin (colonist)

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 keep. I've not renamed the article despite sensible suggestion to do so; any editor who is familiar with the topic may directly undertake the move to the new name (if it's not controversial) or take up discussions on the talk page of the article for the proposed move. (non-admin closure) Lourdes 02:29, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Corbin (colonist)[edit]

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

This does not meet WP:BO or WP:GNG. A family history. Boleyn (talk) 08:03, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 09:04, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 09:04, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 09:04, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As per nom. Non-notable. No sources. Macktheknifeau (talk) 15:20, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep It's not that cut and dry here. This early figure in Virginia's history appears in over a 100 books ([1]) - seems that he is the founder the Virginia Corbin family, and that he was an ancestor of Robert E. Lee as well as 2 signers of the declaration of independence Richard Henry Lee, Francis Lightfoot Lee, and governors Henry Lee III, Thomas Sim Lee. Also covered in this journal article [2]. I'm qualifying my !vote as weak as I have not yet vetted all these sources, however based on sheer quantity of sources (as well as being a founding member of an important family (yes, NOTINHERITIED - however this tends to lead to coverage)) - he's probably notable.Icewhiz (talk) 15:47, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Coverage needs to be "significant". A large volume of low-quality 'stub' type mentions of a person who existed in history doesn't automatically qualify that person for notability. As an example, the junior staff under notable flag rank officers from World War 2 aren't necessarily inherently notable even if they had been mentioned dozens of times in sources like official reports, biographies or other sources like historical articles, as working for that officer. Macktheknifeau (talk) 16:25, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bit beyond a stub in some of them. It is definitely not at the "no sources" level you noted above in your !vote. I am still qualifying my !vote as weak as I have not assessed in detail enough of these sources (and while some seem strong, others are clearly low-quality "weeds") - however seeing that the man's name is present in sources authored throughout two centuries (as well as being an early colonist, first in the line of an important family, and carrying out a political role at the time) - he most likely is notable.Icewhiz (talk) 12:22, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NPOL #1 "provincial legislature". The JSTOR reference cited in the article [3] states: "He was a member of the House of Burgesses for Lancaster at the sessions of March 1658-9, March 1659-60, and was appointed to the Council 1663." See also Journals of the House of Burgesses of Virginia, 1619-1658/59, Volume 2. 24.151.116.12 (talk) 17:21, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: That only suggests likely notability. For such an obscure legislature I don't think it really trumps his lack of general notability. I also note there is a list List_of_members_of_the_Virginia_House_of_Burgesses which is filled with many red links, and for those that have articles, they suffer just as much from a lack of notability that many of them could suffer from the same lack of notability. Macktheknifeau (talk) 17:35, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I realize that serving in the first elected legislature in North America may be more "obscure" than playing for, say, the APIA Leichhardt Tigers FC, but we all have our interests. Vive la difference. 24.151.116.12 (talk) 17:59, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets WP:NPOL as an elected member of a provincial legislature, however early said legislature is, it still counts. I would argue that this figure meets WP:GNG anyway due to the books and research which he features in. Prince of Thieves (talk) 18:19, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:POLITICIAN. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:24, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Related to the entry from the The Virginia Historical Magazine, he has a full entry in: Tyler, Lyon Gardiner. Encyclopedia of Virginia Biography. Vol. 1. Lewis historical publishing Company, 1915 p 128 and in a numerous less reliable genealogy books, including Hardy, Stella Pickett. Colonial Families of the Southern States of America: A History and Genealogy of Colonial Families who Settled in the Colonies Prior to the Revolution. Wright, 1911. p172. The former discusses some other official roles he played, including justice of Lancaster and then of Middlesex, and commissioner in tobacco production regulation talks with Maryland. The later calls him registrar of Middlesex County from 1663-1667, gives dates for his services as Burgess, and calls him a member of the King's Council. This last claim is repeated elsewhere and seems to be related to the "family tradition" of his relationship with Charles II, but I can't find any sources that I'd consider reliable on that point. Smmurphy^(Talk) 20:37, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Smmurphy: "Kings council" is probably the British honorific for barristers and judges, see Queen's Counsel (currently a Queen in office), if granted the subject uses KC or QC as a post-nominal. I think it's a kind of civilian honor. Prince of Thieves (talk) 04:50, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

the history of Queen's Counsel says of King's Counsel "It became of greater professional importance to become a KC" and "The earliest English law list, published in 1775, lists 165 members of the Bar, of whom 14 were King's Counsel..." so early on there doesn't seem to be many of them and if Corbin was a KC it would probably of been quite a big thing. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:48, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it there ~1700 now, but that is still a very small percentage of British lawyers. I think it is an important thing to note if it is the case, but I don't know how to verify it. Prince of Thieves (talk) 12:26, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In this colonial context, the sources appear to be referring to the upper house of the Virginia legislature, the Virginia Governor's Council whose members were appointed by the sovereign at this time. 24.151.116.12 (talk) 16:02, 13 March 2018 (UTC) He's mentioned as "Henry Corbyn" in Executive Journals of the Council of Colonial Virginia, Volume 1 (1925) p. 536 but I can't see much in the snippet view. 24.151.116.12 (talk) 17:30, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also on further consideration, if it was the Queen's Counsel honor, he would have the KC post-nominal, which is not used in any source. Prince of Thieves (talk) 17:32, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely. Postnoms were rarely used in those days. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:04, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:54, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Arguments about appointments as King's or Queen's Counsel have nothing to do with this: this is a senior rank of barrister. Even if he was a KC, it would not make him notable. What does make him notable is being one of under a dozen members of the Governor's Council. In view of the book cited Rename to Henry Corbyn, which may be a more appropriate spelling. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:12, 18 March 2018 (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.