Talk:Roger ...felde

Question of Notability

If the only information known about this person is a partial name, then it seems to fail the notability requirement of Wikipedia. Thoughts? Hydroquake (talk) 18:55, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

That's right. Merged/redirected. Loew Galitz (talk) 21:19, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

it's notable because he's cool also ~Darth Stabro^{Talk/Contribs} 02:00, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Just be serious. This is encyclopedia, not social media. Loew Galitz (talk) 02:27, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

We know that the person was a member of the Parliament of England, which was the governing body where members later became called Member of Parliament (United Kingdom). This is a national governing body. We know the years they served, and through Wiki links we know all the government published activity which is recorded during their term.

By WP:SNG we have WP:NPOL, which says that national politicians are inherently notable. The rationale for this is the presumption that even without individual sources, such politicans are one of a small group who guide the fate of nations as documented in national records. Those records exist.

If someone wants to challenge this person's notability then please WP:AfD it. Bluerasberry (talk) 15:44, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Agree with Bluerasberry that they are inherently notable. It's possible more sources exist recording his parliamentary activities. Polyamorph (talk) 17:31, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Given that no other information (including their own name) is known, it’s probably best to redirect to the page from Loew Galitz’s edit. It appears that the entirety of this page comes from a note on the Hereford (UK Parliament constituency) page. And if other knowledge about them is uncovered in the future, then a page creation could be warranted. Hydroquake (talk) 18:33, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

@Hydroquake: I hear you, but we have an existing guideline which seems to apply - WP:NPOL. Can you react to this? Bluerasberry (talk) 12:03, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

WP:COMMON. First of all, there is no such thing as "inherently notable". The cited guideline says "...are presumed to be notable", a rule intended for AfD, meaning that the info is not removed from Wikipedia. WP:GNG says "Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article Now, I see no "real-life" reason to keep an article with sole info: nothing is known except of him being a MP. A redirect is just fine. Loew Galitz (talk) 18:10, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Here is what we know:

• member of the Parliament of England
• From Hereford
• held office in 1407, reign of Henry IV of England
• real individual person with a name, even if we do not know part of it
• may be related to Thomas Whitefield

Here is our source.

• "...FELDE, Roger, of Hereford". History of Parliament Online. Retrieved 2014-05-16.

I think that's it! Loew Galitz, is it your position that this fails WP:NPOL? This might be interesting for an WP:RfC to test the limits of NPOL. Bluerasberry (talk) 11:35, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

You forgot to mention

• His first name is Roger.
• The last part of his last name is "felde" or "feld".
• Iformation about him is published in The History of Parliament: the House of Commons 1386-1421.

Colleague, all this is WP:TRIVIA, no substantial information, it may safely be merged into the list in Hereford (UK Parliament constituency). Loew Galitz (talk) 16:11, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

As for limits of NPOL, it is a guideline, not a strict ironclad cast in stone policy, and we also have WP:COMMON. Just you wait, and I will litter wikipedia with tens of thousands of members of the USSR Supreme Soviet. (Of course not. I could have employed some kind of bot, but I am too old to learn programming :-) Anyway, I got bored. Taking it off my watchlist. Loew Galitz (talk) 16:16, 24 August 2022 (UTC)