- 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 Royal Commission into the Operation of the Poor Laws 1832. Tone 22:33, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
Henry Bishop (priest)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Henry Bishop (priest) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Doesn't have the coverage to meet WP:GNG or the achievements to meet WP:BIO. Boleyn ( talk) 21:09, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:25, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:26, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith ( talk) 00:42, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith ( talk) 00:42, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleteunless more in-depth sources turn up. We barely have enough here to distinguish this specific Rev. Henry Bishop from other people also named Rev. Henry Bishop active at the same time; it's not enough for an actual article. — David Eppstein ( talk) 01:24, 25 January 2020 (UTC)- Redirect to Royal Commission into the Operation of the Poor Laws 1832 per discussion below. — David Eppstein ( talk) 18:58, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
Delete- There is a Henry Bishop of that time in Boase but it is not this Henry Bishop. This Henry Bishop is less remarkable, and seems to be known only for being a member of the Royal Commission into the Operation of the Poor Laws, and that as a member of the clergy from Oriel college. He does not meet WP:GNG for biographies. He could get a mention in the page on the poor laws - and indeed he does. He is not notable enough for a biography of his own, however, and this was recognised by the second editor to edit this page in 2009. In the last 11 years, no one has found any reason why he should be considered notable. -- Sirfurboy ( talk) 23:24, 25 January 2020 (UTC)- ... and Redirect to Royal Commission into the Operation of the Poor Laws 1832 per discussion below. -- Sirfurboy ( talk) 20:44, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
Merge brieflyto Royal Commission into the Operation of the Poor Laws 1832, where there is a list of members (including him): brief biographical details can be appended to the appearance of his name there. Peterkingiron ( talk) 16:38, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
- Hi Peter, I very much respect your input into deletion discussions, and usually end up agreeing with you because of your better research. But on this one I am going to ask whether you would think again. Merge is not deletion, and if there is a consensus for merge, we have to start again with a merge proposal. That would be the right thing to do if there was a lot of information to be merged, because the Wikipedia license and copyright law require us to keep page history of the merged content when undertaking a merge. In this case, however, any information to merge is minimal, and consists of a tiny bit of biographical detail lifted from a source. That is neither creative nor original, so can be copied in right now without any copyright implications. It would be better to agree deletion of the page and just add some detail to
Royal Commission into the Operation of the Poor Laws 1832 before the deletion is complete. If you agree, I will make an edit to preserve the biographical information. Thanks. --
Sirfurboy (
talk)
21:46, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
- I tend to agree. I would be ok with adding his dates and that he was a Fellow of Oriel to the commission article, now, regardless of the outcome of this AfD, and then redirecting this article to the commission article in place of or as well as my delete recommendation above. We don't need to include the other genealogical information. — David Eppstein ( talk) 21:53, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
- Hi Peter, I very much respect your input into deletion discussions, and usually end up agreeing with you because of your better research. But on this one I am going to ask whether you would think again. Merge is not deletion, and if there is a consensus for merge, we have to start again with a merge proposal. That would be the right thing to do if there was a lot of information to be merged, because the Wikipedia license and copyright law require us to keep page history of the merged content when undertaking a merge. In this case, however, any information to merge is minimal, and consists of a tiny bit of biographical detail lifted from a source. That is neither creative nor original, so can be copied in right now without any copyright implications. It would be better to agree deletion of the page and just add some detail to
Royal Commission into the Operation of the Poor Laws 1832 before the deletion is complete. If you agree, I will make an edit to preserve the biographical information. Thanks. --
Sirfurboy (
talk)
21:46, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
- Now Redirect to Royal Commission into the Operation of the Poor Laws 1832. I have added very brief details to the list of commission members, so that I now consider there is nothing to merge. As a fellow of Oriel Coll., Oxford, he was probably in effect a lecturer - a NN academic. Peterkingiron ( talk) 18:13, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
- Redirect as above. I've been on the fence about this one and I think that is a good compromise. I think it's possible more sources may emerge in time, but they don't seem to be available now. Jahaza ( talk) 20:46, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
- Redirect as suggested above. Bearian ( talk) 18:32, 30 January 2020 (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.
- 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 Royal Commission into the Operation of the Poor Laws 1832. Tone 22:33, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
Henry Bishop (priest)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Henry Bishop (priest) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Doesn't have the coverage to meet WP:GNG or the achievements to meet WP:BIO. Boleyn ( talk) 21:09, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:25, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:26, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith ( talk) 00:42, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith ( talk) 00:42, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
Deleteunless more in-depth sources turn up. We barely have enough here to distinguish this specific Rev. Henry Bishop from other people also named Rev. Henry Bishop active at the same time; it's not enough for an actual article. — David Eppstein ( talk) 01:24, 25 January 2020 (UTC)- Redirect to Royal Commission into the Operation of the Poor Laws 1832 per discussion below. — David Eppstein ( talk) 18:58, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
Delete- There is a Henry Bishop of that time in Boase but it is not this Henry Bishop. This Henry Bishop is less remarkable, and seems to be known only for being a member of the Royal Commission into the Operation of the Poor Laws, and that as a member of the clergy from Oriel college. He does not meet WP:GNG for biographies. He could get a mention in the page on the poor laws - and indeed he does. He is not notable enough for a biography of his own, however, and this was recognised by the second editor to edit this page in 2009. In the last 11 years, no one has found any reason why he should be considered notable. -- Sirfurboy ( talk) 23:24, 25 January 2020 (UTC)- ... and Redirect to Royal Commission into the Operation of the Poor Laws 1832 per discussion below. -- Sirfurboy ( talk) 20:44, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
Merge brieflyto Royal Commission into the Operation of the Poor Laws 1832, where there is a list of members (including him): brief biographical details can be appended to the appearance of his name there. Peterkingiron ( talk) 16:38, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
- Hi Peter, I very much respect your input into deletion discussions, and usually end up agreeing with you because of your better research. But on this one I am going to ask whether you would think again. Merge is not deletion, and if there is a consensus for merge, we have to start again with a merge proposal. That would be the right thing to do if there was a lot of information to be merged, because the Wikipedia license and copyright law require us to keep page history of the merged content when undertaking a merge. In this case, however, any information to merge is minimal, and consists of a tiny bit of biographical detail lifted from a source. That is neither creative nor original, so can be copied in right now without any copyright implications. It would be better to agree deletion of the page and just add some detail to
Royal Commission into the Operation of the Poor Laws 1832 before the deletion is complete. If you agree, I will make an edit to preserve the biographical information. Thanks. --
Sirfurboy (
talk)
21:46, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
- I tend to agree. I would be ok with adding his dates and that he was a Fellow of Oriel to the commission article, now, regardless of the outcome of this AfD, and then redirecting this article to the commission article in place of or as well as my delete recommendation above. We don't need to include the other genealogical information. — David Eppstein ( talk) 21:53, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
- Hi Peter, I very much respect your input into deletion discussions, and usually end up agreeing with you because of your better research. But on this one I am going to ask whether you would think again. Merge is not deletion, and if there is a consensus for merge, we have to start again with a merge proposal. That would be the right thing to do if there was a lot of information to be merged, because the Wikipedia license and copyright law require us to keep page history of the merged content when undertaking a merge. In this case, however, any information to merge is minimal, and consists of a tiny bit of biographical detail lifted from a source. That is neither creative nor original, so can be copied in right now without any copyright implications. It would be better to agree deletion of the page and just add some detail to
Royal Commission into the Operation of the Poor Laws 1832 before the deletion is complete. If you agree, I will make an edit to preserve the biographical information. Thanks. --
Sirfurboy (
talk)
21:46, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
- Now Redirect to Royal Commission into the Operation of the Poor Laws 1832. I have added very brief details to the list of commission members, so that I now consider there is nothing to merge. As a fellow of Oriel Coll., Oxford, he was probably in effect a lecturer - a NN academic. Peterkingiron ( talk) 18:13, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
- Redirect as above. I've been on the fence about this one and I think that is a good compromise. I think it's possible more sources may emerge in time, but they don't seem to be available now. Jahaza ( talk) 20:46, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
- Redirect as suggested above. Bearian ( talk) 18:32, 30 January 2020 (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.