Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Winterson Richards

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 soft delete. Although a couple people are attesting that the subject has local notability and that sources exist to support it, the core policy of verifiability needs to be met in order to substantiate those claims of general notability, which is the primary rationale for deletion being offered by the experienced editors. slakr^\ talk / 21:07, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

John Winterson Richards[edit]

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

This seems to be the classic sort of biographical article about a local politician that WP:POLITICIAN notability criteria is designed to prevent. Richards is clearly a bright guy who has had an active career in local politics (the claim of being leader of the opposition on Cardiff Council is less impressive when wou consider he was the only Conservative councillor). Much of the biographical info is from a book that lists everyone that has stood for election in Wales since 1885 - in my view it would set a worrying precedent to create local politician articles based on books like these (negating the purpose of WP:POLITICIAN). I've lived in Cardiff for 30 years with a keen interest in politics and never heard of him! The question is then whether writing/contributing to several books in the 1990s meets WP:AUTHOR. It clearly doesn't at the moment, with the books being cited to the books themselves. I'd charitably go for a Weak delete myself (there's a chance of offline reviews of his books etc.) unless someone can provide at least one strong piece of evidence of general notability. Sionk (talk) 12:41, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 13:29, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 13:29, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I wrote and posted the original article. Just to be clear, I am not the subject of the article or related to him or employed by him.
With all due respect to Sionk, his submission contains no hard data but consists largely of subjective personal opinion and verifiable errors of fact. First, he states that a principal source for this article is a book that ‘lists everyone’ who stood for election in Wales and he therefore fears a precedent. This is not so: the book in question, ‘Welsh Hustings’ by Ivor Thomas Rees, is confined to Parliamentary, European, and National Assembly candidates only, and is in any case used here only for biographical data, not as proof of notability. Second, Sionk remarks that Richards being Leader of the Opposition on Cardiff Council is no achievement because he was the only Conservative. In doing so, Sionk confuses two separate facts which are clearly differentiated in the article. Being the Leader of the Opposition on the pre-reorganisation City Council and the only representative his party on the post-reorganisation County Council are two separate roles on two separate local authorities. Third, Sionk writes dismissively of Richards ‘writing/contributing to several books in the 1990s.’ The implication that Richards has done nothing since is completely wrong. The fact is that Richards has been in print constantly since the 1990s, a very different matter. He currently has at least six titles available under his name, including four new ones in the last three years. All this is sourced and referenced in the article. Finally, Sionk’s comment that he has never heard of Richards is subjective and of no relevance because it gives us information about Sionk but no objective information at all about Richards. Indeed, it only begs the question how self-confessed ignorance of a subject can be considered a qualification for recommending deletion of an article on that subject?
Doubtless these errors were all made in good faith, but they do indicate that far less research went into Sionk’s criticism of the article than went into the original article itself, which I took some time and trouble to source and check.
As for the positive case for Richards’s notability, I was prompted to write the article because I was familiar with Richards’s work as a writer and because he was already mentioned by name in at least two other Wikipedia articles. His involvement in local politics many years ago is of secondary importance, a biographical detail it would have been wrong not to mention but not the reason I wrote.
In fact, I agree with the phrasing of Sionk’s original objection that being elected a councillor is not in itself sufficient notability. That said, a case could be made independently – and I stress that it is not the primary case I am making here – that Richards was more than just another councillor. Already mentioned by name as a Parliamentary candidate in another article, he was also the official leader of the opposition in a capital city and, later, the only representative of the governing party of the UK in any elected office in that capital city, as well as an important figure in Welsh local government reform and in his own community.
Richards’s notability as a writer rests on two books which have both been constantly in print for twenty years, and frequently reprinted and revised – a rare achievement for any writer and which few contemporary writers can match. Reference is made to the books themselves as sources because, of course, most editions contain lists of previous editions. The citation of the books as references is therefore correct, and indeed necessary. I do not have access to sales figures but we can safely assume no book remains constantly in print for twenty years unless there is demand and without selling a large number of copies over that time. Indeed, a simple Google search does seem to confirm that there are a lot of copies in circulation.
Finally, the article does attract an increasing number of visitors and has been sitting here quite happily for a number of years without any apparent concern. As Richards continues to publish so demand for the article seems to rise. I will submit to the judgment of Wikipedia, whatever it may be, and will not repost in the event of deletion. But, if that is the case, I suspect that there will be demand for a new article before long, and it would not be as well-researched and accurate as this one. Bubothe owl (talk) 17:29, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage in secondary sources. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 17:39, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Since I live in Lisvane and know the subject very well, I feel it would be wrong to take a position on his ‘notability,’ but I feel I can help with Hirolovesswords’ point about secondary sources.
Richards is in fact very well documented in publicly available secondary sources, but, since his involvement in public life ended in 1999, and the first editions of the two books that have sold consistently for two decades were published before then, they are of course mainly on paper rather than online. This is a problem with Wikipedia in general – and I speak as a strong supporter of the Project – that it tends to ignore or undervalue subjects dating from before the time when everything is routinely put online and, conversely, to overemphasise things dating from the last few years. Richards was mentioned frequently in the local papers of record, the Western Mail and the South Wales Echo, as well as the now defunct Cardiff Independent and Cardiff Gem, which should be available at Cardiff Central Library. He was the subject of front-page stories and feature articles in the Western Mail, ‘the National Newspaper of Wales,’ on several occasions. Similarly, his first two books, the ones that have been in print ever since, were reviewed in a number of newspapers and magazines when first published, including the Western Mail. Anyone who wishes to challenge this can and should check it for themselves. To ignore history simply because it is not online is very dangerous.
It might also be helpful if I sort out Sionk’s confusion about Richards being Leader of the Opposition and sole representative of his party: the commonplace joke that he was Leader because he was the only member of the Opposition is only a joke. The fact is that he was Leader of the Opposition on the City Council when the Conservatives had at least a dozen councillors – I cannot recall the exact number off-hand – and were therefore the largest Opposition group, but they were famously wiped out in the election for the new County Council that replaced it, with Richards being the only Conservative elected. This event got national attention and was even mentioned at PMQs in the Commons. Since nine Liberal Democrats were elected at that election, they became the largest opposition group on the new County Council and their leader, Jenny, now Baroness, Randerson, therefore became Leader of the Opposition. So Richards was never Leader of the Opposition on the County, but he was on the City, where he led a definite group. The article is therefore correct. All this is in the Council records, probably also in Cardiff Central Library, should anyone wish to check.
Incidentally, Richards himself is ambivalent about the retention of the article but would positively welcome the removal of the reference to himself as a ‘politician.’ It is fifteen years since he was active in public life and he has no desire to return to it, and he did not describe himself as a ‘politician’ even when he was active.Mirandajenifer (talk) 01:48, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe if you know the subject well you can find out the details of the book reviews. Sources do not need to be online. If at least one of his books was widely reviewed he would probably meet Wikipedia's notability criteria. Sionk (talk) 12:45, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sionk – I recall seeing a number of newspaper reviews in the 1990s, including the Western Mail, but it is obviously not the sort of thing one keeps to hand. I can only assure you that they exist. In any case, simply quoting reviews in the article runs the risk of it being accused of promotion. A quicker and more objective test is to do as Bubothe owl suggests and do a simple Google search to confirm that there are a lot of copies in circulation. In addition, simply clicking ‘sources: books’ at the top of this page confirms that his books have been translated into several languages – a much stronger objective proof of notability.Mirandajenifer (talk) 13:08, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, or fortunately (depending on your point of view), simply writing books which have been translated isn't proof of notability. On the other hand, if journalists or independent experts have reviewed/written about a person's creations, that is objective proof that they (and their work) is widely known (per WP:CREATIVE). I'll have to stick to my 'Weak delete' for now. Sionk (talk) 16:18, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sionk – You might recall that, about a week ago on your ‘Talk’ page, I suggested you obtain a copy of a recent edition of either of the two principal books in question, at least one of which should be available through Cardiff libraries, and check its print history. Have you been able to do that yet? Mirandajenifer (talk) 16:35, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You don't seem to understand Wikipedia basics. Existence is not proof of importance. Sionk (talk) 16:38, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sionk – With very great respect, it is you who seems to misunderstand the basic point here. Any book which has been in print constantly for twenty years, reprinted and revised numerous times, and translated into several other languages is by definition notable. Evidence of all this has been presented to you, but you seem determined to ignore it. You have also been told that the book has been reviewed, even if, for reasons already stated, the evidence of this is not readily available. Incidentally, looking at other author pages, it is only infrequently that reviews are cited directly. Mirandajenifer (talk) 17:13, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:01, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment To progress matters, I am able to confirm Richards was in fact reviewed in a large number of newspapers and magazines, of which I have been able to source and date about two dozen, including the Daily Telegraph of 10 August 1992, the Scotsman of 26 March 1994, the European of 1 April 1994, the South Wales Evening Post of 29 April 1992, and a number of leading provincial newspapers, which I trust it is not necessary for me to list here in full. Bubothe owl (talk) 12:55, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. It is not sufficient for Mirandajenifer to claim that newspaper articles exist. We need sufficient information to allow other editors to find them (date, publication, article title) and we need to know what the subject of the article was. Bubothe owl gives more information, but still not the article titles or subject. Sources need to discuss the subject directly and in detail to establish that the subject is notable enough for a Wikipedia article. An article about, say, the cancelling of a new school that happens to mention, or even quote, a local councillor does not really establish notability of the councillor (although it might go towards establishing notability of the school). Bubothe owl says Richards was "reviewed" in these articles but fails to explain exactly what is meant by that. SpinningSpark 20:33, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Although I had no intention of taking a position on Richards’ ‘notability’ as such, in order to help resolve things, I feel obliged to take firm position on the questions of fact that have been raised.
At the time of my last post, I did not have the reviews I mentioned in passing. Since other contributors seemed to place a high value on them, I contacted the original publishers of both the two books that have been in print since the early 90s and have now obtained copies of the reviews to which Bubothe owl refers. I hope I can clarify matters in a way that meets all the – perfectly legitimate – concerns raised by Spinning Spark. ALL the reviews in question refer to those two books, ‘The Xenophobe’s Guide to the Welsh’ and the ‘Bluffer’s Guide to Small Business,’ and are titled accordingly – anyone interested in Richards’ political contributions can find them easily in the local papers I mentioned in my previous post, but they are not the main point under discussion here. In addition to the four references quoted by Bubothe owl, I have reviews from, among others, the (Newcastle) Journal dated 08.04.92 the (Plymouth) Western Evening Herald dated 17.03.94, the Guernsey Evening Press dated 22.04.92, the Clwyd Evening Leader dated 27.04.92., the Swindon Evening Advertiser dated 24.04.92, the East Anglian Daily Times 22.04.92, the Yorkshire Evening Press dated 13.04.92, the South Kent Citizen dated 15.04.92, the (Portsmouth) News undated 1992, the (Cumberland) Evening News and Star dated 09.04.92, the (Brighton) Evening Argus dated 16.04.92, Bella magazine undated 1992, the West Sussex County Times dated 01.05.92, and a sadly defunct publication called Girl About Town dated 27.07.92. These are just samples – there are a lot of others. Although most are provincial or local, they are provincial or local papers of record, and, since they come from localities all over the UK, together meet the criteria of ’widespread reviews.’ I hope this satisfies your point, Spinning Spark.Mirandajenifer (talk) 22:24, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand you, you are trying to make a case for notability on the basis of books the subject has authored. Book reviews indicate notability of the book, not necessarily of the author. The relevant guideline for notability of authors is WP:AUTHOR. I'm not seeing that Richards meets any of the criteria listed there. SpinningSpark 00:56, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Point 3 of WP:AUTHOR says "The person has created... a significant or well-known work... that has been the subject of ...multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.", which would apply if we knew more than vague details about reviews. From the list above, it seems that something was widely covered in the press in April 1992 and, if the something was created by Winters it would establish some notability for him. Sionk (talk) 01:41, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that routine new book reviews, by themselves, meet the criterion of "significant or well-known". Hundreds of new books are reviewed every day, most of which just disappear into obscurity. "The xenophobe's guide to the Welsh" was first published in 1994 and "Bluffer's Guide to Small Business" was first published in 1992 which exactly match the dates of the articles given by Mirandajenifer (although she doesn't say which is which). If there were reviews of them many years after publication, or some discussion that was more than routine reviewing, then maybe there would be something to that, but as it stands I think there is a better case for the notability of the books (both of which are still in print and have gone through more than one edition) than of the person. It is always possible that some of these reviews contain substantial biographical information on the author, but in the absence of more information my recommendation remains "weak delete". SpinningSpark 11:10, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, our interpretations seem to part ways here. But I agree reviews need to be weighty. Sionk (talk) 16:30, 10 January 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.