Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hugh Archer ("Sagette")

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. Stifle (talk) 13:32, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hugh Archer ("Sagette")

[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)

Lieutenant in navy, who also was a spy for a short period (1912-3) in peacetime, reporting on ship locations. Does not have significant coverage. Pikavoom ^Talk 10:02, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Pikavoom ^Talk 10:02, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Pikavoom ^Talk 10:02, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. Pikavoom ^Talk 10:02, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Pikavoom ^Talk 10:02, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Pikavoom ^Talk 10:02, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Full obituary in The Times, cited in the article. We have always considered that an obit in a major national newspaper is sufficient for notability purposes. Also clearly a captain in the navy, not a lieutenant. But rename to Hugh Archer (Royal Navy officer). -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:35, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Is there actually a full obituary? Or is a short very brief death listing? I've searched for sources for "Hugh Archer" ""H. E. M. Archer". All I found that was of any substance were some results in the "Six: The Real James Bonds 1909-1939" book. Pikavoom ^Talk 12:43, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - I believe I just said it was a full obituary! -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:00, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - You won't search the Times archive with Google. Uncle G (talk) 14:46, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - Precisely. You can't ignore sources just because you can't find them on the internet. -- Necrothesp (talk) 22:03, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      - This has been Wikipedia policy for as long as I can remember and it's unfortunate some are choosing to disregard it. Atchom (talk) 20:26, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - It is a full obituary. I just checked. Atchom (talk) 20:24, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BASIC. If the only basis for retention is an argument that "an obit in a major national newspaper is sufficient for notability purposes" (not policy but a claimed consensus) then that obit should be accessible for review and assessment so that Users can see whether it was truly an obit written by a staff writer or a family provided death notice. Mztourist (talk) 03:51, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So you are saying you voted for deletion even though you made no effort to look at one of the key sources? Wikipedia policy is very very clear: sources don't have to be online, or even readily accessible, in order to be valid sources. Atchom (talk) 20:24, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I can't access the Times obituary and my past experience at AFD where obituaries have been used as the sole basis for claiming notability is that you have to read what the obituary actually says. If he actually passed BASIC there should be more reliable sources than one paywalled obituary. Mztourist (talk) 03:40, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Two editors have now said that it's a full obituary. Anyone would think that you don't believe anything unless you can see it yourself on the internet, which is contrary to WP:OFFLINE. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:30, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As you well know, I don't trust your claimed consensuses and past AFDs has shown that your and my views on what amounts to a "full obituary" rather than a family contributed one do not align, so this still doesn't pass BASIC. Mztourist (talk) 06:55, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:AGF. You're basically saying I'm lying. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:02, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly don't AGF from you. Mztourist (talk) 05:44, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And what basis do you have for accusing a long-serving editor and admin of breaching good faith? Your conduct is coming very close to being unacceptable. I'm sure you do really know this. -- Necrothesp (talk) 22:37, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I faced the similar situation, with Mztourist in the opposite side. @Necrothesp Why don't you take photoshoots of some pages in the book that support your information instead of keep it as a mystery your own and make doubt from others? AGF with visible proof is better than AGF with doubt. Leemyongpak (talk) 13:38, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, the obituary is approximately 280 words long; neither massive nor a tiny stub. Ljleppan (talk) 10:29, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. Certainly not just a death notice. If The Times, Britain's principal newspaper of record, thought him sufficiently notable to write an obituary about then who are we to reject him, with our numerous articles on minor vloggers, bloggers, warblers and reality nobodies? Wikipedia should not become a repository of pop cultural information, ignoring those who were notable before the advent of the internet and even television. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:57, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Necrothesp for better or worse, our notability guidelines are largely based on significant coverage in multiple independent secondary sources and a single obituary would be rather unlikely to overcome the multiple aspect. For that reason, I'd greatly appreciate if you could answer my query regarding Six: The Real James Bonds 1909-1939 below. Ljleppan (talk) 11:24, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, I haven't got access to the book. However, consensus is very much that an obit in a major national nespaper is sufficient for notability purposes for the reasons I have outlined above. As we all (should) know, nothing in Wikipedia is set in stone, especially if consensus says something else. That's why the policies WP:CONSENSUS and WP:IAR exist, to point out exactly this to those who are uncomfortable with our lack of actual rules. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:49, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your reply regarding the book. I'll wait a day or two to see if Atchom or someone else can provide a description of the coverage in it beyond what's visible to me in Google Book before !voting. Ljleppan (talk) 11:55, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:BASIC, including the obituary in the UK's newspaper of record and everything else. Previous voter himself admits he hasn't made any effort to look at the source, which is unfortunate. Atchom (talk) 20:26, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Necrothesp and Atchom: do you have access to Six: The Real James Bonds 1909-1939 so that you could describe how in-depth the coverage of the subject is in that book? -Ljleppan (talk) 10:26, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- To clarify, I'm asking because a Google Books search shows very few results in the book for sagette or archer. Ljleppan (talk) 10:33, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't see much aside from the Sage and Sagette thing taken together, either, although there are two other books that cover that same ground. However, a search of one on-line newspaper archive indicates that the one major source plus several minor sources principle might apply, the obituary being the major source.
    The minor sources would be the aforementioned book, a marriage to Millicent Mary Pearson, in the Northampton Mercury and Bedfordshire Mercury dateline 1905-11-17, a mention in admiralty honours list in the Liverpool Journal of Commerce and Liverpool Daily Post dateline 1916-07-15, an estate of £3,476 (equivalent to £298,324 in 2023) in the Hampshire Telegraph dateline 1931-05-01, and a 1931-01-09 obituary in the Dover Express.
    All these by looking for the full name Hugh Edward Murray Archer. I don't have access to the full text, which is likewise subscription only. This does (further) indicate that Google is the wrong tool to address this with.
    Uncle G (talk) 09:08, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete The relevant guideline appears to be WP:BASIC. While the The Times obituary is significant coverage at approx. 280 words, it alone is not sufficient to establish notability. The other potentially interesting sources it the Six book. That, however, does not appear to contain anything beyond passing mentions based on a Google Books search as described above. Similarly, the sourced identified by Uncle G are, according to his description, minor and would not count for significant coverage. In totality, we have one good source and a small smattering of passing mentions and run-of-the-mill news coverage. While WP:BASIC does allow for an exception where if the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability, in my view, this has not been reached in this case. My overall assessment is that the subject does not pass WP:BASIC based on the identified sourcing. It's always possible that other good sources exist, but would need to be identified for them to count. My !vote is weak as I do not have perfect visibility to all the references. -Ljleppan (talk) 21:29, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I typed out the full text of the obit:
Captain Hugh Edward zMurray Archer, D.S.O., R.N., of Hill House, Eastry, Kent, died suddenly on December 30 at Collinghamgardens, S.W. He was the eldest son of the late Mr. Walter E. Archer, C.B., and entered the Navy in 1894. Promoted to lieutenant in 1902, he served in the battleship Empress of India when flagship of Rear-Admiral E. S. Poe in the Home Fleet, and also in the battleship Majestic. He specialized in navigation, and was navigating officer of the cruiser Iphigenia when in 1906 she was selected as one of the first ships to be adapted for minelaying. From June, 1908, he was first and navigating lieutenant of the cruiser Perseus in the East Indies. He retired in 1910, but rejoined the active list on the outbreak of War in 1914, and was appointed for minesweeping duties at Sheerness. Later he was appointed to the Attentive, parent ship at Dover, for similar duties, and he was one of four minesweeping officers under the orders of Sir Reginald Bacon who were commended in the Admiral's book on the Dover Patrol; they "were excellent in training sweepers and in gallantly leading their ships under heavy gunfire, when ordered to sweep up dangerous minefields, both 'enemy' and our own." Captain Archer was promoted to acting commander and received the D.S.O. in July, 1916, in recognition of his services with ships of the Auxiliary Patrol. After the Armistice he was appointed to the Minesweeping Division at the Admiralty. He was confirmed in the rank of commander with effect from November 11, 1918, and in August, 1924, was promoted to captain on the retired list.

While this seems substantial, we still require multiple such sources to demonstrate notability, and these have not been provided. JoelleJay (talk) 23:04, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is another obituary in the Dover Express, 9 January 1931, p 8. Plus all the book mentions. Atchom (talk) 01:52, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This may be useful for discussion, although still a work in progress. User:Necrothesp/List of AfD discussions for individuals with an obituary in a major newspaper. It already shows a pretty good consensus, I think. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:24, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A list of deletion discussions mentioning an obituary is not evidence that there is larger consensus that a single obituary alone is sufficient to establish notability. If there is an actual consensus for a single obituary to be sufficient for notability, I suggest you start up an RFC to modify WP:NBASIC accordingly as that would be quite a drastic deviation from how it is currently phrased. Ljleppan (talk) 15:49, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You will see, if you look at them, that many of those discussions do indeed come to that conclusion. But I do appreciate from prior painful experience that those opposed to such a consensus will refuse to see it no matter how much evidence is presented to them (and will probably disdainfully dismiss such evidence as fabrication and lies, since WP:AGF is alien to some if their own views are challenged). Nevertheless, I will point out that WP:CONSENSUS quite clearly states that decisions on Wikipedia are reached by consensus arrived at through both editing and discussion (which includes at AfD), and nowhere does it say that WP:NBASIC, a guideline, trumps a policy. Too many editors take it as gospel, but it is not and was never intended to be. -- Necrothesp (talk) 21:22, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In addition to the Times obituary, at least two historians have written about his exploits in at least three books. pburka (talk) 21:15, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Pburka: based on Google Books search results the book(s) appear to mention the subject only in passing. If you have access to the full text, and can verify that the coverage is in-depth, please give a brief description of what is said and in how much detail. Simply asserting that sources exist is not very helpful. Ljleppan (talk) 21:47, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- From WP:SIGCOV, "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." A "passing mention" would be something like "Archer also attended the event." Each of the books devotes several paragraphs or pages to Archer and his father, addressing their espionage activities directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. For example, we learn from Boyd that the pair knew Denmark and Norway intimately, they traveled to those countries on a yacht subsidized by SSB, they exceeded the £1200 budget (leading to arguments with their handler), they were successful, and their mission was used as a model for similar coast-watching networks during both world wars. Smith goes into more detail about the funding problems: apparently the Archers refused to reveal the names of their recruits until they received an extra $10,000. (The sources I refer to are linked in the article and can be verified by anyone.) pburka (talk) 22:21, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  Thanks for your reply. I can see the British Naval Intelligence through the Twentieth Century page via google books. As indicated by e.g. footnote seven in WP:BASIC, depth of coverage is a spectrum, and in my view a few sentences discussing both him and his father jointly are not very persuasive of the subject being sufficiently notable for inclusion. If we had even one extensive ref together with the obituary, I'd find it much easier to !vote keep. How long is the relevant section in The Anatomy of a Spy? Ljleppan (talk) 22:34, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  All the book coverage is on the pair, "Sage" and "Sagette", and cover this one brief episode as spies in peacetime. This is not coverage of these two as individuals, but of an intelligence operation. Pikavoom ^Talk 05:43, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  Once we have an article about the operation we can consider redirecting this biography to it. pburka (talk) 16:14, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as well as the obituary there is significant coverage in this book here, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:16, 19 April 2022 (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.