Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2013 June 25

Sir Edward Peel (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

This article was speedily deleted under WP:CSD#A7 despite the fact that the very first word of the very title, and, from what I can remember, the content of the article, indicated that the subject received a knighthood, a clear indication of importance/significance. I would also point out that speedy deletion had been contested in good faith by an established editor who was not the creator of the article. The deleting admin gave a shockingly clueless response to my questioning of his action, so we have to discuss this here. Overturn. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:31, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse my deletion. Since when has a knighthood been automatic indication of importance for Wikipedia purposes? The article was very short on references and did not even include one to show that the guy had received the title. Incidentally, by all means start the article with "sir" but standards lay down that we do not include the word in the article title. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:42, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• More cluelessness. References are not required to get past WP:CSD#A7. And having the wrong title, as I agree that this has, is a reason for renaming, not speedy deletion. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:44, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn. Importance is asserted if unproved, but that's not a speedy deletion candidate. Gross misapplication of A7. Mackensen (talk) 22:44, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn most certainly not speedy. Just the fact that there is serious disagreement if "Sir" passes the WP:CSD#A7 bar requires a discussion/consensus cycle. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 22:49, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse I wouldn't say "Sir" indisputabily proves notability all by itself. The article doesn't indicate he did anything notable (though he enjoyed fishing apparently) and was missing even the barest minimal material (no date of birth or even century of birth!) and the lone reference mentioned him only in passing briefly and did NOT support the "Sir" title. If there was something, anything here to latch onto I'd say send it to AFD just in case, but there isn't. Also, the repeated "clueless" by the nominator is verging dangerously close to a personal attack. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:07, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• What does indisputably proving notability have to do with speedy deletion? And, if we were looking for the higher standard of notability, how would a knighthood not satisfy WP:ANYBIO criterion 1? And, lastly, the deleting admin is on record as using and accepting the use of blunt language, so I have spoken bluntly. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:21, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Andrew, speedy deletions ought to be uncontroversial. If he's this Sir Edward Peel (unclear), then he's very likely notable. Speedy deletion isn't cleanup. Mackensen (talk) 00:20, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The Peel Commission was actually headed by William Peel, 1st Earl Peel, not Edward Peel, so it seems that that source is mistaken despite being published by the Cambridge University Press. Our Edward, according to sources that I can find but can't add to the article in its current state, ran a cotton trading company in Alexandria and was well-known as a yachtsman and fisherman. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:17, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and send through AfD. This was not clear-cut enough to be an A7, even if it may eventually merit deletion. Jclemens (talk) 03:31, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• There's no need for me to pile on with another "overturn", so I won't, but while I was looking into this I found RHaworth's talk page fascinating. "In general, I do not talk to IP addresses." RHaworth, are you tired of the sysop role?—S Marshall T/C 07:39, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn - a knighthood is not proof of notability, of course, but it's an assertion of significance. While I understand the sentiment of not wanting to pile on, an admin who makes such an indefensible deletion and then defends it needs a strong rebuke. WilyD 08:39, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn without prejudice to go to AfD. Trout slap RHaworth for biting newbies and not understanding our deletion policies - CSD means "getting this past an AfD is borderline impossible, so let's not bother." Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:40, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Send to AfD I am alarmed to find I have some sympathy with the speedy. "Sir" can be a baronet and so an eldest son/grandson, etc. can inherit the title willy-nilly. So for me "Sir" is not in itself an indication of importance. But I can't see the article so I don't know what else it said – so little, it seems, that we don't even know who was being written about. Since I can neither "overturn" nor "endorse", I'll say that the deletion has been controversial and the deleting admin should undelete the article and do so willingly. Thincat (talk) 09:49, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The article explicitly said the subject was a Knight Commander of the Order of the British Empire rather than a baronet. Hut 8.5 10:09, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, overturn then. Thank you. I don't think all KBEs are inherently notable but I think it surely does "indicate why its subject is important or significant". Thincat (talk) 12:02, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn a knighthood is certainly an assertion of significance sufficient to get past A7. Even if it wasn't, the article also said that he was one of a small group of people who pioneered a certain form of fishing, which would also qualify. The deleting admin is seriously mistaken if they think A7 is about notability. Hut 8.5 10:09, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• I have temporarily undeleted this to assist this discussion. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:05, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Thankyou. Being able to see the context that this is a historical figure helps enormously. I am going to assume good faith that this editor, Colonialhistorian49 (talk · contribs) is a keen amateur historian with a library of printed sources, but one who is inexperienced with computers (perhaps "49" is the year he was born, making him 63-64), and really pushes my buttons into "bash the overzealous CSDers with a large stick" mode. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:27, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Ritchie, I know that you mean well, but your comment comes across as rather patronising. There are plenty of 64-year-olds with 40+ years of experience with computers, and my 80-year-old mother is perfectly at ease with using hers, both for her work and for communicating with her friends, many of whom are older than she is. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:17, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not surprised it came across as patronising - I meant to say something like "all the ins and outs of all of Wikipedia's policies" rather than "computers" in general. Sorry about that. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:26, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn This is an admittedly crappy article, but there are rather clear assertions of notability, even if they are weakly supported and documented. The decision to keep or delete this article should be made by the community, not by a single administrator. Alansohn (talk) 18:51, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support deletion. Per Wikipedia:BLP#Proposed_deletion_of_biographies_of_living_people, "As of April 3, 2010, a new proposed deletion process was established, requiring all BLPs created after March 18, 2010, to have at least one source that supports at least one statement made about the person in the article". This does not. If this is restored, it will fail WP:PROD and almost certainly WP:AFD.--Launchballer 13:20, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• This is not about a living person and does have a source confirming that the subject was a pioneer of tunny fishing. And this discussion is not about whether he would get through AfD, but whether the speedy deletion was correct. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:29, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would be amazed if this would survive speedy deletion - as quoted above, CSD means "it won't get past an AfD so don't bother". This will not survive an AfD. The article, or for that matter the reference, doesn't say that he's dead (it's not an official policy but I recommend assuming alive unless we can source otherwise) besides saying that he was a tunnyfisher. Either way, if it survives this, that's where it's going. In the meantime, I would recommend re-reading WP:NPA and WP:CANVASS; this discussion is about Sir Edward Peel (if we can find evidence to suggest he is a Sir and not a Colonel like the provided reference states), not the administrative actions of RHaworth. Per WP:DFFWF, two wrongs don't make a right. But what do I know? I've only been editing regularly for a few months.--Launchballer 15:38, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• This is deletion review, which is by definition the forum for discussing whether the administrative action of speedy deletion was performed correctly. And what on Earth is the connection with WP:NPA, WP:CANVASS and WP:DFFWF? As for evidence that he was knighted, that can be found in the badly formatted external link, which I can't correct while the article is blanked. And the knighthood was conferred in 1918, so we can safely assume that the subject is no longer living. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:14, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Without a specific day of death, one can still reasonably infer that someone awarded the Distinguished Service order in 1918 has passed on. WilyD 09:02, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn A surprising misunderstanding of the speedy criteria by a veteran administrator. There's something odd here, because this is one admin from who I never would have expected this. I can imagine I might have made an error of this sort--anyone can do something foolish, but if I had, I would have immediately corrected myself upon being told. On the other hand, I can understand a newcomer not realizing the difference between AfD and speedy, but I'd expect even a newcomer to check the rules before posting here. DGG ( talk ) 23:45, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Your bold !vote does not seem to match your comments. Warden (talk) 09:22, 28 June 2013 (UTC) Fixed. DGG ( talk ) 08:34, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn An honour is a prima facie pass for A7. Warden (talk) 09:22, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and trout RHaworth for an utterly inappropriate use of A7-Speedy. Carrite (talk) 18:36, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and let editors improve this article.--DThomsen8 (talk) 18:39, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn with option to userfy, as the nom has stated an intent to rename the article and add sources.  Unscintillating (talk) 04:30, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]