Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lawrence Washington (1659–1698)
- 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 Speedy keep due to nominator withdrawal. clpo13(talk) 05:53, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Lawrence Washington (1659–1698)[edit]
- Lawrence Washington (1659–1698) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No indication of any encyclopedic notability independent of his famous grandson. Subject fails WP:BASIC. Article fails WP:NOTINHERITED and WP:NOTGENEALOGY. Ad Orientem (talk) 15:52, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
- Withdrawing nom based on RS evidence of elected membership in the House of Burgesses. Per WP:NPOL the subject is notable. The article remains in need of some very serious work, however I do not believe any remaining issues are fatal. Suggest speedy close per WP:SK by any uninvolved editor. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:51, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
- Please, if he were not notable for being George Washington's paternal grandfather, he was still the owner of the future Mount Vernon estate, and for that reason alone would merit mention in, oh, about 2,000 Washington biographies. I realize you are trying to make a point about Frederick Trump, slapping an AfD on it while on DYK, but this extra hatchet work borders on vandalism and is truly offensive to me. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 17:07, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
- I find your lack of WP:AGF to be regrettable. I think it worth noting that I was not the one who linked this article as part of an OTHERSTUFF argument. If we are going to cite other articles in a debate then they are fully subject to critical review. That said, the only (2) sources cited are genealogical. And no, we don't extend notability purely on the basis that you once owned land, even famous land. As far as I can tell your interpretation of the guidelines does not seem to include WP:NOTINHERITED and WP:NOTGENEALOGY, the latter of which I should note, is policy and trumps (no pun intended) any contrary interpretation of guidelines. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:16, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
- Exactly—as I read it, another user brought up Lawrence Washington as an example of someone whose notability is conferred, in part, by his relationship to a famous historic individual )as WP:NOTINHERITED is not so absolutely cut-and-dried, as you surely know) and here you took a hatchet to THIS orchard!! Surely this article could be improved with additional sources, but Lawrence Washington is quite notable for his historic landowning and familial role. Sorry about AGF but I'm just a bit aghast at this. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 17:48, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
- NOTINHERITED and NOTGENEALOGY are not especially complicated, unless you are trying to get around them. Subjects of biographical articles need to demonstrate sufficient notability to justify a stand alone article without relying on their relationship to other notable figures. In the rare cases where a direct connection contributes to a claim of notability, the importance of that relationship (as in the case of Alois Hitler) must be obvious and extensively covered in RS sources. There is nothing in this article that suggests any independent claim to notability. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:32, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
- Exactly—as I read it, another user brought up Lawrence Washington as an example of someone whose notability is conferred, in part, by his relationship to a famous historic individual )as WP:NOTINHERITED is not so absolutely cut-and-dried, as you surely know) and here you took a hatchet to THIS orchard!! Surely this article could be improved with additional sources, but Lawrence Washington is quite notable for his historic landowning and familial role. Sorry about AGF but I'm just a bit aghast at this. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 17:48, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
- I find your lack of WP:AGF to be regrettable. I think it worth noting that I was not the one who linked this article as part of an OTHERSTUFF argument. If we are going to cite other articles in a debate then they are fully subject to critical review. That said, the only (2) sources cited are genealogical. And no, we don't extend notability purely on the basis that you once owned land, even famous land. As far as I can tell your interpretation of the guidelines does not seem to include WP:NOTINHERITED and WP:NOTGENEALOGY, the latter of which I should note, is policy and trumps (no pun intended) any contrary interpretation of guidelines. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:16, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
- Comment: Setting the NOTINHERITED issue aside, this is not a particularly well-sourced article. pbp 20:46, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
- I agree with that. Have been looking online for better sources. Lots of good material on historical sites that aren't rock solid RS. Someone with a brick-and-mortar library could really help us out. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 21:08, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
Besides being George Washington's grandfather, Lawrence Washington was a Member of the Virginia House of Burgesses and Sheriff of Westmoreland County, as well as an officer in the Virginia militia and a significant landowner. Seems to me that being a member of a legislative body, or sheriff of a county, would support a claim to independent notability. Certainly any member of a modern legislature or county sheriff would be entitled to an article, and it is difficult to see on what basis we would decide differently here just because Lawrence's service was some centuries ago. While I agree the article could use some updating and additions, I don't think deletion is warranted. Jrt989 (talk) 23:15, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
- County Sheriff would not IMHO qualify barring a very unusual level of non-local news coverage (see WP:NPOL). However being an elected member of the House of Burgeses, which I looked for and did not see in the article before sending it to AfD, would almost certainly establish a level of notability justifying his own article. If this can be verified with an RS source that would at least resolve the question of WP:N. The article is still in need of serious work, but the remaining issues are not fatal. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:35, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
- You are correct that the Membership in the House of Burgesses is not currently in the article, but I have seen it mentioned elsewhere, including at List of members of the Virginia House of Burgesses. I will see if I can find a good source for his membership. As to the position of county sheriff, I personally think that it is not an immaterial factor in determining Lawrence's notability -- I note, for instance, that several county sheriffs in my home state have articles on Wikipedia. That said, I cannot say whether that is a local peculiarity or whether sheriffs from other parts of the country receive the same treatment. Best, Jrt989 (talk) 01:12, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
- Keep on the basis of Ad Orientem's criterion of verifying being a member of the House of Burgesses. "Lawrence Washington...won election to the Virginia House of Burgesses" from George Washington's Mount Vernon: At Home in Revolutionary America, Robert F. Dalzell, Lee Baldwin Dalzell. SpinningSpark 01:26, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
- I updated the article to include a line about Lawrence's service as a Sheriff and as a member of the House of Burgesses, along with accompanying citations. I'll keep updating as/if I find more info. Thanks for the "push" to dig a little deeper on this topic! Jrt989 (talk) 02:14, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
- 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.