Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Benjamin Bond Cabbell
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. (aeropagitica) (talk) 13:25, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Benjamin Bond Cabbell
Article on a very obscure person which fails to assert any kind of notability. Not notable personality which is void of any encyclopedic value. The google test lists only 26 results --Mecanismo | Talk 15:34, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Google is not very informative for someone dead for so long, but he does look highly non-notable. Page creator admits he does not know WP policy. Leibniz 16:02, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- Keep— Although this material is likely to be promoted by someone with a specific interest in Benjamin Bond Cabbell, perhaps genealogy, it must be evaluated on its own merit. Notability is always contentious, and notability (people) is not Wikipedia policy so we have no absolute standard. The list of ways to verify notability of articles reminds us that "article for deletion reviews, although frequently limited to internet resources, must remain aware that not all published material of significance has been posted on the internet;" this is an excellent example where an internet review is likely to come up dry. Without doing serious library research, one can only review the article. Amusingly enough, the item that probably qualifies him for notability is mentioned in passing – serving as Sheriff of Norfolk - which was a far more substantial role in earlier centuries than it is today. Although this opens to door to a long string of Sheriffs from Norfolk (and many other places), in the ambiguous and contentious world of Wikipedia NN determinations, Sheriffs probably warrant a spot. Keep him - Williamborg (Bill) 16:56, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
- Wrong. Our WP:BIO criteria have been widely employed by many editors for several years, now, being derived from our official policy that Wikipedia is not a genealogical database. An argument that we should keep this because it is of genealogical interest is an argument against policy.
As for searches coming up dry, we've had enough false historical figures (and Greek gods, even — see Dinlas (AfD discussion)) slyly inserted into Wikipedia to know that simply accepting something without attempting any verification at all, simply because it is "historical", is prone to egregious error. The article cites no sources, and unless editors are able to find sources for themselves (which you yourself say they are not) this article is unverifiable.
If you wish to make a case for keeping that actually holds water, please cite some sources to show that this person is indeed a part of the enduring historical record, having been mentioned in history books and suchlike. Uncle G 17:48, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
- Wrong. Our WP:BIO criteria have been widely employed by many editors for several years, now, being derived from our official policy that Wikipedia is not a genealogical database. An argument that we should keep this because it is of genealogical interest is an argument against policy.
- Keep— Although this material is likely to be promoted by someone with a specific interest in Benjamin Bond Cabbell, perhaps genealogy, it must be evaluated on its own merit. Notability is always contentious, and notability (people) is not Wikipedia policy so we have no absolute standard. The list of ways to verify notability of articles reminds us that "article for deletion reviews, although frequently limited to internet resources, must remain aware that not all published material of significance has been posted on the internet;" this is an excellent example where an internet review is likely to come up dry. Without doing serious library research, one can only review the article. Amusingly enough, the item that probably qualifies him for notability is mentioned in passing – serving as Sheriff of Norfolk - which was a far more substantial role in earlier centuries than it is today. Although this opens to door to a long string of Sheriffs from Norfolk (and many other places), in the ambiguous and contentious world of Wikipedia NN determinations, Sheriffs probably warrant a spot. Keep him - Williamborg (Bill) 16:56, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
- He is notable enough. Keep topic if new article is written, but delete this version as copyvio. He was an MP (fulfilling WP:BIO) as well as a Fellow of the Royal Society. Moreover, he has an article in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. The problem with this article is just that significant parts of it are uncomfortably close to the one in the ODNB. up+l+and 19:04, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. He's listed under past Fellows of the Royal Society, according to Sackler Archive Resource (search on Cabell then click on number for more details). It also lists him as Vice President, Royal Institution, which doesn't seem to be in the article. FRS alone seems to meet notability requirements to me. Edited to add: there's also a picture of his lifeboat here. And he's cited in the index of the book Making English Morals: Voluntary Association and Moral Reform in England, 1787-1886 which suggests he may have been a notable MP. Espresso Addict 19:50, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- Comment: I've now collected some links on the talk page which go some way to answering Uncle G's challenge, and may also help with making a non-copyvio article. Espresso Addict 20:19, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Apppears notable enough: Member of parliament and FRS. Ohconfucius 03:55, 28 August 2006 (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.
