WIKIPEDIA:ARTICLES FOR DELETION CLIFFORD LACEY

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 redirect to Archdeacons in the Diocese of Southwark. Not enough info to keep an article on the subject. (non-admin closure) ミラ P 20:58, 4 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Clifford Lacey

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

The subject was an archdeacon but after searching I cannot find anything else that makes him notable. He has a who’s who entry for being an archdeacon but this is not notability for wikipedia. Archdeacons could be notable for other reasons but this one does not seem to be. Page appears abandoned by its creator. Sirfurboy ( talk) 10:06, 28 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sirfurboy ( talk) 10:06, 28 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Sirfurboy ( talk) 10:06, 28 December 2019 (UTC) reply

*Delete - Lack of sourcing. Also, could not find additional info when I searched. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CmdrGibbons ( talk • contribs) 13:55, 28 December 2019 (UTC) striking confirmed blocked sockpuppet, Atlantic306 ( talk) 17:58, 28 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Are we able to see whose sock puppet this eminates from? Bashereyre ( talk) 21:55, 29 December 2019 (UTC) reply

A check of yesterday's list of Articles for Deletion shows that this person commented on all of them, so I doubt it was anyone associated with this subject in particular. -- Sirfurboy ( talk) 22:15, 29 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Thank you Bashereyre ( talk) 12:01, 30 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Other discussions

Also see:

Bashereyre ( talk) 21:56, 29 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Delete archdeacons are not inherently notable, and the coverage does not rise to the level to pass GNG. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 15:15, 30 December 2019 (UTC) reply
Redirect to Archdeacons in the Diocese of Southwark. If possible, the content should be merged there as well. James500 ( talk) 09:06, 4 January 2020 (UTC) ~~Keep.~~ Satisfies criteria 3 of WP:ANYBIO, with article in A & C Black's Who's Who. James500 ( talk) 22:49, 2 January 2020 (UTC) Apart from Who's Who, there is other coverage in Crockford's Clerical Directory, The Church of England Year Book and the New Year Honours of 1946 (mention in dispatches). I am having a lot of difficulty searching for this because of the high level of background noise (there seems to be another Archdeacon Lacey). James500 ( talk) 02:05, 4 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Response: Just a reminder that WP:ANYBIO does not establish notability. It specifically says: "Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." The subject is in Who's Who because he was an archdeacon, but WP has a higher standard. Per WP:RELPEOPLE, only bishops of major denominations are notable by virtue of their status. -- Sirfurboy ( talk) 23:58, 2 January 2020 (UTC) reply

RELPEOPLE is an essay. ANYBIO is a guideline. An essay cannot overide a guideline. James500 ( talk) 01:36, 3 January 2020 (UTC) reply

I don't think that answers my point. ANYBIO does not establish notability. The guideline explicitly makes that point. -- Sirfurboy ( talk) 08:41, 3 January 2020 (UTC) reply

It answers the final two sentences of your point. Is there some other reason why he should not have an article? James500 ( talk) 09:27, 3 January 2020 (UTC) reply

It doesn't answer that. ANYBIO does not establish notability in this case because the entry in Who's Who is there because he is an archdeacon, which is not notable for Wikipedia. I am repeating myself, so I will say no more on that. You ask why he shouldn't have an article - that is down to notability. Why shouldn't anyone have an article? Because (1) Notability is the WP standard and (2) what you end up with is thousands upon thousands of perma-stub pages because there is nothing more that can be said. Such people can definitely be mentioned on Wikipedia. A collation of archdeacons in a diocese could list and describe him, but there is no benefit in having a bio page that has nothing more than was already found in the Who's who entry. Even Who's Who doesn't give a whole blank page to every person - because they understand that what is important in satisfying the reader's information requirement. In Wikipedia, stubs do not do this. What you need is a page that collects information, presents it clearly and fully in context, and for less notable people, that means being described in a page that places them within the only context for which they are known. -- Sirfurboy ( talk) 10:47, 3 January 2020 (UTC) reply

~~Delete~~ Redirect to Archdeacons in the Diocese of Southwark. I find no coverage of this person, beyond a brief announcement of being appointed to a position. I don't think that Who's Who, even if not the paid-for type, is an equivalent to a Dictionary of National Biography, and so doesn't meet WP:ANYBIO anyway. His role of archdeacon does not give presumed notability, unlike bishops, and he doesn't seem to have written books or done anything else that would generate attention to him or his works. So he meets no notability guidelines. RebeccaGreen ( talk) 13:04, 3 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Vote changed to Redirect, as an alternative to AfD, and a possible search term. RebeccaGreen ( talk) 12:35, 4 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Weak delete - while I think there's a presumption that archdeacons could be notable, like mayors of medium-sized cities, this one fails WP:SIGCOV. I tried by looking on different searches, and have found nothing. On the other hand, deanery of Greenwich is not really a rural deanery - it's an urban sprawl now. Bearian ( talk) 22:51, 3 January 2020 (UTC) reply
Question. Would editors be prepared to merge Lacey to Archdeacon of Lewisham or Archdeacons in the Diocese of Southwark? James500 ( talk) 02:05, 4 January 2020 (UTC) reply

They are the same article, not two - a redirect would be fine, but unless that article is substantially reorganised, there is no room in it for the additional information in this article. It already gives the years of his appointment as Archdeacon of Lewisham. A redirect would be possible, though. RebeccaGreen ( talk) 07:20, 4 January 2020 (UTC) reply

I agree. It make sense to redirect there. We could have a table like the one I put into Archdeacon of Raphoe. I would be happy to reorganise the material on that page, although it would, of course, require consensus from other editors to include such a table. -- Sirfurboy ( talk) 08:06, 4 January 2020 (UTC) reply

I have changed my !vote to redirect. I agree that Archdeacons in the Diocese of Southwark should be reorganised in a way that allows content from Clifford Lacey to be merged there. James500 ( talk) 09:06, 4 January 2020 (UTC) reply

I have also changed my vote to Redirect. RebeccaGreen ( talk) 12:35, 4 January 2020 (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.

Clifford Lacey

Other discussions

Clifford Lacey

Other discussions

Videos

Websites

Encyclopedia

Facebook