Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Herbert Kemp

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 No consensus on Kemp, with no prejudice against speedy relisting due to most participants here overlooking him, Keep on Morrow, and Delete on Ellenbogen. This is a good example of why it's generally not a great idea to bundle biography articles together unless they're all on very similar subjects.. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:57, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[]

William Herbert Kemp et al.[edit]

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

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

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

These people were failed Liberal candidates in the United Kingdom general election, 1950. Two of them finished third with 8% each (not a significant percentage) and the third one finished third with 16%. Apparently none of them ever had a significant professional or even political career, as it looks like none stood for parliament again. The Theosophist (talk) 03:45, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 03:55, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 03:55, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 03:55, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[]

Delete All The articles are put together from minor primary sources, censuses, election results, Who's Who, etc. There is no secondary coverage, or assertion of notability.Borock (talk) 04:43, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[]

Keep All The articles are put together from major primary sources, censuses, election results, Who's Who, etc. There is secondary coverage and assertion of notability. (Author, Knight of the British Empire and Lord Mayor of Stoke) Their notability does not rest on their parliamentary record, so the details relating to their candidature are irrelevant beyond the point that they were failed candidates. Graemp (talk) 06:12, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[]

Since when do all authors, KBEs (which, by the way, is not referred to at the article) and Lord Mayors have an article? Many people write books and they are not notable, many people every year are awarded membership to British Orders but are not necessarily article-worthy and the position of Lord Mayor is, in most cities, held by people who are only locally notable.--The Theosophist (talk) 12:42, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[]

@ Theosophist: The Morrow article clearly refers to his knighthood. I think I can safely say that all authors, KBEs and Lord Mayors don't have an article. Graemp (talk) 13:15, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[]

Members of British orders are not necessarily worthy of articles. But commanders/companions and above (including knights, of course) have always been held to be. Only a few dozen knighthoods, at the most, were usually handed out every year (and fewer are now). -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:51, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[]

Delete ~~Morrow and~~ Ellenbogen for certain as failing WP:BIO. As Borock has noted, the sources are of very poor quality, e.g. Who's Who of 475 Liberal Candidates fighting the 1950 General Election. Not sure about Kemp, but probably delete as well. Lord Mayor of Stoke-on-Trent is a "largely ceremonial" position; is having been a member of the Stoke-on-Trent City Council sufficiently notable? Clarityfiend (talk) 11:11, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[]

Keep Morrow. The article's so poorly written, it devotes one lousy, cryptic line about what he's really noted for, but obituaries in many major newspapers testify to his worthiness. I'm going to do a proper revamp, so that people will have at least a clue as to his significance. Clarityfiend (talk) 15:38, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[]

@ Clarityfiend: I note your uncertainty about Kemp. Please can you explain why you think Morrow fails WP:ANYBIO and Ellenbogen fails WP:AUTHOR. Thanks. Graemp (talk) 11:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[]

Morrow fails ANYBIO because a knighthood or membership to the Order of the British Empire are certainly significant awards, but they are held by thousands of people, not all of whom are sufficiently notable to have articles. I also do not see any significant contribution of Morrow to business or of Ellenbogen to legal literature. He has written law books, certainly, but are they notable enough to warrant an article for him?--The Theosophist (talk) 12:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[]

In addition to seconding The Theosophist's comments, I've already noted that there are no solid references for these people to show that they've reached the required level of notability. Clarityfiend (talk) 13:06, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[]

@ Theosophist: If Morrow fails, he does not do so on the basis of WP:ANYBIO. The article clearly states what he received it for and this is properly sourced. I note that you are uncertain about the notability of the law books written by Ellenbogen. Graemp (talk) 13:15, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[]

I regret to say that the mere fact that one was created a Knight Bachelor for x reason, does not necessarily mean that he made ″widely recognized contributions″ to his field.--The Theosophist (talk) 14:12, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[]

@ Clarityfiend: Please can you explain what you mean by "solid references"? Morrow's knighthood is referenced to Who's Who perhaps the premier reference source in the UK. Kemp's position as Lord Mayor was referenced to the 1950 edition of The Times House of Commons, a nationally recognised reference publication. Ellenbogen's authorships are not currently referenced in the article but these are confirmed by the relevant link above. Graemp (talk) 13:15, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[]

Mere mentions don't help much, especially if they just confirm simple facts. Kemp's lord mayority(?) is an unnotable fact. Clarityfiend (talk) 15:38, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[]

@Clarityfiend: It is Lord Mayoralty, for your information.--The Theosophist (talk) 16:14, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[]

What a load of drivel. Of course it does. And it clearly meets WP:ANYBIO. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:51, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[]

Keep Morrow. The man had a knighthood, for Christ's sake. That has always been held to easily meet WP:ANYBIO #1. Any claim otherwise shows an utter lack of understanding of the British honours system. And he was managing director of that little-known company Rolls Royce Ltd! He also has a very substantial obituary in The Times and we have always held that an obituary in a major national newspaper proves sufficient notability for an article. Neutral on the other two, although leaning towards delete as neither have Who's Who entries or obits in The Times. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:51, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[]

I usually boast that I understand the British honours system more than most people and this is why I know that many times people of secondary and tertiary importance receive honours. Just look at 2015 New Year Honours. Still, the Rolls-Royce argument may be sufficient but then we should create an article for all other Rolls-Royce MDs too.--The Theosophist (talk) 16:11, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[]

Also Morrow had obits in the Guardian and Telegraph. Though Ellenbogen's obit did not make it to The Times he is mentioned in 80 articles according to The Times on-line archive. Graemp (talk) 15:05, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[]

It is also probably worth noting that the Morrow article contains a portrait of him that is held by the National Portrait Gallery, linked to their website for everyone's convenience, the significance of which should not be lost to anyone who knows about such portraiture. Graemp (talk) 15:24, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[]

Where do you get 80 articles from? I see only one, and it's not about him.[1] Clarityfiend (talk) 15:38, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[]

The Times digital archive http://find.galegroup.com/ttda/basicSearch.do access only for subscribers or certain UK library card holders. Graemp (talk) 16:08, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[]

Keep Morrow obviously. Rolls Royce is (or at least was) a company of grand strategic national importance to the UK, and its managing director is an important position. Le petit fromage (talk) 19:16, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[]

Keep Morrow, Weak Keep Kemp, Delete Ellenbogen. I can't see the notability of Ellenbogen. None of his publications were every notable. With Kemp, I'd say his position as Lord Mayor along with being Alderman for somes years and a Justice of the Peace is possibly enough to carry him on when combined with his political candidacy. Morrow as MD of Rolles Royce is immediately notable in my view, especially when combined with his political career and knighthood. The Times obituary notes he was also a Financial Director and then Managing Director of Bush Electrical Engineering. He was also Chairman of Kenwood, see here. JT_dale^Talk~ 02:17, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[]

According to Lord Mayor of Stoke-on-Trent, "the position ... is largely ceremonial. The role of Lord Mayor is decided upon by a vote amongst the elected councillors," not the general public. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:54, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[]

This argument is not correct, as Graemp pointed out. It does not matter if an office is ceremonial or indirectly elected. What matters is whether an office is important. Most Lord Mayors of Stoke-on-Trent do not have their own article because they were simply local magnates who were selected to lead a year′s city parades and (maybe) sign council documents. This why they are not notable solely on the basis of being Lord Mayors of Stoke-on-Trent.--The Theosophist (talk) 12:37, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[]

Not just local magnates, but long-serving councillors (who may also be local magnates, of course). People aren't just parachuted in as mayor - they're elected from the ranks of the council. But I agree lord mayors are not notable by virtue of their office. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:47, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[]

I agree with Theo and Necro. I would also point out that the role of lord mayor would also include a number of important non-ceremonial functions, such as chairing meetings of the full council, the most senior policy deciding meeting of the council. However, I don't agree that "lord mayors are not notable by virtue of their office". WP seems to distinguish between the importance of the authority, valuing strategic and regional significance. For example, the List of Lord Mayors of London provides evidence of notability of that particular office. Stoke is not London but its regional significance as the centre of the UK pottery industry led to its status and that of its civic head being elevated in 1928. Graemp (talk) 15:09, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[]

We have to remember that Lord Mayors of London are a special case. They are usually prominent figures in the business world and are also almost always knighted on vacating their office (indeed, it used to be traditional to appoint them to baronetcies). Whereas lord mayors of other cities can be complete nobodies outside the council chamber. And let's face it, in general who knows who their mayor is? It is certainly true that many mayors, even of relatively small towns, have been knighted (or even appointed baronets) for outstanding (and usually very long) service to their towns, and these are obviously notable, but others must be judged on their individual merits. -- Necrothesp (talk) 22:42, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[]

Hence why I said 'weak keep'. Stoke-on-Trent is not a tiny city, he was an Alderman and then Lord Mayor. I think on its own, definitely not notable, but his political candidacy, chairmanship of local political branch, justice of the peace status. Here is also some more info on his chemist success; [2]. JT_dale^Talk~ 13:47, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[]

@ JTdale: Some good points. I note that you can't see the notability of Ellenbogen and appreciate that as a non-UK resident, you may be handicapped by lack of access to UK sources such as The Times Digital Archive. Graemp (talk) 10:14, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[]

@Graemp. That is probably true. JT_dale^Talk~ 13:47, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[]

@Clarityfiend: When it comes to notability, I don't think that this point is that valid as according to UK Monarchy the role of Queen is also ceremonial. The fact that the post was not directly elected by the public did not in itself reduce the responsibilities of its holder. Graemp (talk) 10:14, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[]

The difference, of course, is that the Queen is sovereign for life, whereas the Lord Mayor is elected every year! I don't think we can assume non-executive mayors or lord mayors of British cities are ever notable simply for being mayor. They must have other achievements as well. Any long-serving councillor is pretty much guaranteed to be elected mayor eventually. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:47, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[]

There are of course many differences between a British Queen and a British Lord Mayor. I've not been able to locate anything that indicates length of tenure to be a determining factor on notability. But as Necrothesp points out, most Lord Mayors are likely to have had a long career in public service anyway. Notwithstanding the point I made above about Stoke, I agree with Necrothesp, some Lord Mayor's would probably struggle to meet a sufficient level of notability. Graemp (talk) 15:09, 15 January 2015 (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.