Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Arthur Bayley

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. SouthernNights (talk) 00:23, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

John Arthur Bayley[edit]

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

A biography of a person who does not meet WP:GNG or the more specific requirements of WP:SOLDIER, this article attempts to inherit notability from members of the regiment he served with.

Source review (excluding duplicates):

1: A source confirming his birth & lineage
2: As above, confirming his birth & lineage
3: An auction site listing
4: His autobiography
6, 7: Confirming his death
11, 12: Confirming that he was a member of the British Army
15: Confirming his promotion
23: No mention of Bayley in this source
24: A sketch from the Illustrated London News, no mention of Bayley

All in all, this is pretty routine, run-of-the-mill stuff for any army officer of the period. My WP:BEFORE searching confirms that there is none of the significant coverage in reliable, independent sources that the GNG requires. Exemplo347 (talk) 19:43, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:35, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:35, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:35, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject not notable. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:48, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Oddly, his claim to notability seems to rest on something barely touched on in the article. His Reminiscences of School and Army Life, 1839-1859 is still in print because it was published before 1923. It seems to have been used as a source for books on the period such as Hew Strachan's Wellington's Legacy: The Reform of the British Army, 1830-54 (1984) and From Waterloo to Balaclava: Tactics, Technology, and the British Army 1815-1854 (1985), and is referred to in the article on 52nd (Oxfordshire) Regiment of Foot. Therefore, he could arguably pass WP:SOLDIER#8, recognized by their peers as an authoritative source on military matters/writing. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:38, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If that's only based on his one book, and that book passes the GNG, then there's a possibility for an article about the book - but there's no significant coverage in independent, reliable sources about him. Exemplo347 (talk) 01:10, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The material found by Hawkeye7 indicates that the topic has good potential. Andrew D. (talk) 06:19, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, before a misguided pile-on starts, let me point out that the GNG supersedes WP:SOLDIER, and the article is about the person, not his book. Exemplo347 (talk) 08:15, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My position is based upon our deletion and editing policies which are superior to such guidelines. My !vote stands. Andrew D. (talk) 05:58, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, neither of those policies state that articles about subjects which meet none of Wikipedia's inclusion criteria should be kept just for the sake of it. Exemplo347 (talk) 08:12, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A straw man can't bludgeon effectively. My !vote stands. Andrew D. (talk) 23:22, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep -- The fact that someone has seen fit to republish his memoir suggests that it is regarded as a useful historical source. This may be sufficient to push this into notability. It is probably better to have an article on the writer's career than on the book. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:06, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Peterkingiron - it's self-published. He published it himself, and any reprinting is simply the result of an on-demand reprinting service. And WP:AUTHOR doesn't support your assertion that it's better to have an article about the author rather than the book. Nothing you've said here is based on Wikipedia's policies.Exemplo347 (talk) 22:23, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For God's sake, "self-published" in 1875 carried an entirely different significance than it does today. Poe self-published, as did William Morris, Lawrence Sterne, and Lord Dunsany. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 12:51, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note If people could actually point out how this person meets WP:GNG when they !vote "Keep", it'd make things much simpler. The only "keep" !voter who has actually made an argument based on an existing inclusion criteria is Hawkeye7. The others are just red herrings, as far as I can see. Exemplo347 (talk) 08:19, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom as a non-notable person. --Lockley (talk) 05:41, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- non notable under WP:SOLDIER nor under WP:AUTHOR. Significant RS coverage that discusses the subject directly and in detail is not found. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:50, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:28, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't see a coherent case for deletion. Arguing that a memoirist isn't notable but his memoir is reeks of pedantry. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 12:51, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, I'm not saying that his self-published memoir is notable (I don't think it is), and I've stated my deletion rationale in the nomination above. Exemplo347 (talk) 12:59, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I've added an article reviewing a pamphlet Bayley wrote discussing a controversial point from the attack on Kashmir Gate. I wouldn't say this is the strongest source for GNG, but I think it is more, strong evidence for WP:SOLDIER#8, which is, I think, a version of ANYBIO#2. Smmurphy^(Talk) 18:28, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how a pamphlet he wrote himself is evidence that Bayley is recognized by their peers as an authoritative source on military matters/writing per WP:SOLDIER. Exemplo347 (talk) 18:32, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Something the subject himself wrote probably couldn't, but a review of the pamphlet usually can, and that is the evidence I'm presenting. Smmurphy^(Talk) 19:45, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's immaterial anyway, the GNG supersedes WP:SOLDIER (even if we take a wild leap and say that somehow, a pamphlet review automatically means someone passes WP:SOLDIER) and there's no evidence of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. The bar isn't as low as everyone seems to think it is. Exemplo347 (talk) 20:41, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:45, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I am loathe to eliminate biographies of long-deceased historical personages on minor technical grounds. The GNG call is a close one. Carrite (talk) 16:25, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm still waiting for someone to demonstrate how this passes WP:GNG. Exemplo347 (talk) 19:19, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 04:08, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This seems to be a helpful, well-verified article and deleting it would not be of any benefit. If the notability guidelines suggest deletion then they have come up with an unsatisfactory result in this rather unusual case. Thincat (talk) 21:18, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting ridiculous now. How many more non-policy-based Keep !votes are we going to get? This is basically WP:ILIKEIT. As for the "well-verified" part - if the sources that don't meet WP:GNG were removed (which I should have done before starting this discussion really) there'd be no article. I hope that the person who closes this gives the correct level of weighting to any !vote that isn't based on WP:GNG. Exemplo347 (talk) 21:33, 10 July 2017 (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.