Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Plemth

:{{la|John Plemth}} – (View AfDView log{{•}} [http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/John_Plemth Stats])

:({{Find sources|John Plemth}})

No notability at all. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Booth (priest) for a related case.  —SMALLJIM  17:14, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

• Delete - Stub article with no likelihood of expansion... nor sources upon which to build an proper article. Blueboar (talk) 23:56, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 13:38, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 13:38, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 13:38, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - known by other names. It is interesting that his will survives.[http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/SearchUI/details/D970241?descriptiontype=Full] I don't have £3.50 to go and read it, really. On the other hand as John Plente it is easier to find out more about him.[http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=6Adpj4CIhgkC&pg=PA171] With the clue that he was a Cambridge man, I found the [http://venn.lib.cam.ac.uk/cgi-bin/search.pl?sur=Plente&suro=c&fir=&firo=c&cit=&cito=c&c=all&tex=&sye=&eye=&col=all&maxcount=50 Venn database entry]. So I think this discussion could do with being a bit less superficial. Charles Matthews (talk) 16:35, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
• Keep. The article can be expanded, has been expanded, and no doubt will be further expanded. Charles Matthews (talk) 11:10, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
• Comment. No significant expansion has taken place: is this because there is no notability-enhancing content that can be added? Both this AfD and the one for David Booth (priest) would benefit from further informed opinions from uninvolved editors.  —SMALLJIM  17:10, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

---

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:31, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

---

• Keep - We could mention he's in Fasti Ecclesiæ Anglicanæ, to which detractors would say, "oh, that's just incidental." Here's the question: "Is Wikipedia better off with or without this article?" That seems clear. Now, let's take a look at all the links that are gonna go red if this historical stub is deleted: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:WhatLinksHere/John_Plemth&limit=500]. In what possible alternative universe is that a benefit to the encyclopedia??? So let's go straight to the biggest Policy in the playbook: WP:IGNOREALLRULES — "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." Confirmed existence, factually accurate, valid claim to notability, useful content, that's all we should really worry about. Carrite (talk) 18:59, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

::The inclusion of a post-holder, such as an archdeacon, in any complete list or directory such as Fasti, Crockford's or the Chichester Diocese Clergy Lists (cited in the article) cannot show that post-holder's notability unless there is consensus that the post confers inherent notability - see the Booth AfD and this N/N discussion for more on this (comments welcome). Exactly the same argument applies to Venn, the other cited reference in the article, which lists all Cambridge alumni. Now it is certainly true that if these lists also give biographical information, they may provide useful pointers to other sources that may help show notability, but in this case there's nothing significant indicated - the only snippet taken up by other sources seems to be his bequest to Cambridge, and that certainly isn't enough to satisfy WP:GNG or WP:BIO.

::Regarding the redlink problem, I think I'm right in saying that all 54 linked articles are only there because of the :Template:Archdeacons of Lewes. Remove him from that and all the supposed redlinks would disappear. In fact the article is an orphan, which is not surprising since there is so little to say about him. I don't see any reason to invoke IAR here: a line or two in Archdeacon of Lewes would do the job better.  —SMALLJIM  23:43, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

• Keep per the historical material found by Charles Matthews, and references in a number of other books. WP:N is more than satisfied, and the nominator should have done a better WP:BEFORE check. -- 202.124.73.119 (talk) 11:01, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

::My reply to Carrite above refutes this point, I think. If you know of further independent reliable sources, please add them to the article.  —SMALLJIM  23:43, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

::No, it is becoming clearer that you are not too fair-minded about this. This person passes sensible criteria for notability as applied to 15th-century people. Charles Matthews (talk) 08:32, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

:::Well you're certainly an expert at sewing together an article out of very thin fabric! But it's a shame that all those refs are trivial mentions without any of the significant coverage needed to satisfy the GNG.  —SMALLJIM  10:15, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

::The nutshell for WP:GNG runs like this: "Wikipedia articles cover notable topics—those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time". I think, in making backhanded compliments, you should ask yourself whether you are doing so within the spirit of the guideline you cite. Calling the refs in the article "trivial mentions" does not actually make them so, you know. Charles Matthews (talk) 11:17, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

{{outdent}}

Ohh - you've forced me to list and evaluate them now... As numbered in [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Plemth&oldid=494593879 this version] of the article:

1. Chichester Diocese Clergy Lists, and
2. Venn. As complete lists, these confer no notability.
3. Lepine (1995) p. 171: "The Chichester residentiary John Plente (d.1483) founded a chantry at King's College Cambridge, where he had been bursar, with an endowment of £100." The shortest of three examples of educational patronage, in a book of 240 pages about English Secular Cathedrals in the Later Middle Ages. A trivial mention.
4. Cooper (1860) p. 212: "...John Plente, fellow in 1484..." One of the shortest entries in a list of about 50 benefactors, in a 403-page volume about the Cambridge Colleges. Trivial. ([http://archive.org/stream/memorialsofcambr01lekeuoft#page/212/mode/2up Better ref] - yours is a modern reproduction.)
5. Fuller (1840) p. 152: "John Plentith, fellow, gave one hundred and sixty marks." One brief entry in a table of benefactors, in a book of over 300 pages on the early history of Cambridge University. Trivial.
6. Collecteana (1751) p. 130: "Here also lies buried Master John Plente, formerly fellow of this college, who in 1484, by Indenture [...] he gave the College 160 Marks, and his name was to be enter'd in their bead-roll, and he was to be annually commemrated among the Benefactors." Half a page, mostly reciting conditions, in a description of the monuments and burials in King's College Chapel. (Note that he doesn't have a monument there.) Barely more than trivial and very old and of suspect accuracy.
7. Sussex Archaeological Collections (1948) p. 66: The will of Sir John Atkyns: "To William Atkyns a silver-gilt cup with a figure of St George on the cover, left me by Mr John Plente" and "The priest who celebrates for me for five years is to do so in the Subdeanery, and is to pray for my father and mother, my brother, Sir William Lucy, and Mr John Plente; these names to be written in a list and put on the altar lest they be forgotten." Two trivial mentions in someone's will. A primary source too.
8. Mursell (2001) p. 200: a copy of part of the above will, omitting the first mention. Used as an example of the spirit of the time. Trivial.

You must think that's enough to satisfy WP:N, but with respect for your experience in this field, I have to disagree.  —SMALLJIM  23:57, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

:Actually I have always thought "notability" as used here is a broken concept. It is a placeholder for having a proper topic policy. The advent of the GNG has actually made the situation worse, rather than better. The whole prosecuting counsel thing you are doing with that "Barely more than trivial and very old and of suspect accuracy" thing is designed, apparently, to save face for the idea that this person has no notability at all. I don't know why you think that source is of suspect accuracy: some old antiquarian works are more accurate in transcribing than others, but there is plenty of correlation. What you say about the nature of the Venn database is true (it is a comprehensive listing) but the actual content of the entry is not to be discounted as you do. If we go back to basics and say "was John Plente a notable churchman of his time?" the answer is yes, as far as I can see. If the GNG gives the wrong answer, so much the worse for it. It is only a sub-guideline of a guideline, not official policy, and there is a very good reason for that. Anything drafted to cover reality show stars and historical figures from 500 years ago by universal criteria is a stretch: can't be otherwise. Charles Matthews (talk) 13:03, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

:*Comment. I'll deal with a couple of the points you raise there in a while, Charles, but I want to emphasise that this was put up as a test case, and if it's kept it would seem to leave the way open for the indiscriminate creation of low-quality stubs to continue. There are plenty of senior clergy (archdeacons, deans etc.) who don't have articles here yet, despite Bashereyre's prolific attempts to fill the gap. It is, I suppose, just possible that WP is best served by having numerous short articles on clergy of undetermined notability, instead of the probably preferable option of them appearing with brief details in lists. WP is certainly not best served, though, if those articles are plagued by inaccuracies: I came across a number of problems while fixing faulty ISBNs (see my discussion with Bashereyre [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bashereyre&oldid=494299278 here]), the robust comment made by Anglicanus yesterday at N/N makes some relevant points, and DBD has also expressed concerns, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bashereyre&oldid=481385209 here] for example. Anyway whatever the outcome of this AfD may be, in view of the opposition here I don't think it would be expedient for me to pursue this further. Perhaps those with some influence and an enduring interest in these topics could try to persuade any editors who create such articles to be more discerning and accurate. And maybe start some sort of clean-up campaign.  —SMALLJIM  13:15, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

::In reply to your last comment, I said that Collecteana is of suspect accuracy because I understood you to be indicating as much by your bracketed comment in the article (was he buried in King's or at Exeter?); perhaps I misinterpreted what you wrote there, but it does seem uncertain. The "very old" comment was an incomplete argument, sorry: it was intended to remark on the fact that much of the content of that item does not appear to have been considered worthy of further comment in 250 years. Regarding Venn (and similar "complete" lists), we absolutely have to show notability by using other sources before we can use its content to create articles; if we did not do so we would be setting it up as a provider of inherent notability. Finally: "was John Plente a notable churchman of his time?" - the question of whether or not he would he have appeared in a late 15th-century Wikipedia is, sadly, unknowable...  —SMALLJIM  14:00, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

• Keep This sort of material is to be encouraged, we're already undercovering medeival folk in relation to contemporary folk. Also, the chance of Charles, the most traditionalist wikipedian here creating something not appropriate for wiki is slim.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:23, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

::Further comment: To be clear, the article was created by User:Bashereyre and in its original form might well have been suitable for deletion. But given the half-a-dozen name variants, this isn't at all a clear deletion once researched. I think Henry VIII and Edward VI may well have agreed that chantry bequests were "trivial"; but I don't see it that way. Charles Matthews (talk) 11:54, 27 May 2012 (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.