Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Shipp (soldier)

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. (non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 03:10, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

John Shipp (soldier)

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

This showed up a littel over two months ago and I tagged the article as afd on grounds that by milhist standards the article asserts no notability in regards to the individual in question. It was spared the axe, and I've let it live for two months to see if anything of worth would end up coming of it, but since I still see no notability established insofar as policy and guideline material are concerned I am formally nominating this biography article for deletion, but I will leave the matter of the article's notability to the community to discern. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:08, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:30, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It has been generally established before that if an individual has been held to be notable enough for a biography in the Dictionary of National Biography, the definitive biographical dictionary of notable British historical personages, selected and written by scholarly experts, then they are certainly notable enough for an article in Wikipedia. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:27, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Not according to WP:MILPEOPLE, which is why the article is here, but I do appreciate the input. I have a question: is the DNB mentioned anywhere in the notability guidelines? If not it may be interesting to see a discussion start up concerning that as it relates to this. TomStar81 (Talk) 11:31, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Note that while WP:MILPEOPLE is a good guideline to who is notable, it is not necessarily a good guideline to who is not notable. And all guidelines are just that, guidelines (although in fact this essay doesn't even have official guideline status). Added to the fact that Shipp is better known for his writings than for his military achievements as a junior officer. I feel it is a little odd to question the notability of figures included in the DNB, which is far more proscriptive and less easy to get into than Wikipedia and leans far more towards persons significant to history than to those briefly (and often peripherally) significant in pop culture, as Wikipedia has a tendency to do. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:53, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep An entry in the DNB is normally, and in my view correctly, considered to be sufficient to establish notability. The selection process for the DNB was a lot more rigorous than for Wikipedia and although it is open to anyone to argue that the editors of that publication made a mistake the reasons for inclusion there are likely to satisfy WP:GNG. In this case, his fame was not so much for his military achievements per se but as author of a popular autobiography which went through three editions and retained a readership for most of the 19th century. That he may not be read today is irrelevant - WP works on the principle once notable, always notable. For anyone coming across a reference to his book WP is a good place to find out who he was. --AJHingston (talk) 12:45, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:00, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:00, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not only DNB but various literary criticisms bring Shipp's memoirs to the level of notability. Percy Bysshe Shelley reviewed the memoirs in 1829 in the Edinburgh Literary Journal. The New Monthly Magazine reviewed the memoirs in 1829, too. A reprint was reviewed in 1890 in The Athenaeum. In 1992, Shipp was given as an example in the book Radicalism and reform in Britain, 1780–1850. Binksternet (talk) 16:48, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. MILPEOPLE is a supplementary essay; it doesn't override GNG or BIO. If someone is notable by the latter standards, viz. having significant coverage in multiple reliable sources (such as the DNB or the other sources Binksternet names...and really, the DNB is all we need), it doesn't matter if they don't meet the former. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:35, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as DNB is usually considered sufficient for notability. It is only necessary to pass one notability criterion, not all of them. Cusop Dingle (talk) 18:37, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:48, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Basically the reason for including everything in the DNB is that we include everything in other encyclopedias -- except for the ones so specialized that they don't really discriminate what's important. The DNB is a general national biographical encyclopedia, & that it covers something is sufficient reason.The same goes for the nation biographical encyclopedias for the US and Canada and Australia, etc. DGG ( talk ) 19:21, 12 November 2011 (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.