Talk:Meek family of York

This page was proposed for deletion by an editor in the past.

This article was nominated for deletion on 23 April 2011. The result of the discussion was keep.

England Low‑importance

	England portal This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
Low	This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Yorkshire Low‑importance

	Yorkshire portal Meek family of York is within the scope of WikiProject Yorkshire, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Yorkshire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project, see a list of open tasks, and join in discussions on the project's talk page.YorkshireWikipedia:WikiProject YorkshireTemplate:WikiProject YorkshireYorkshire articles
Low	This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Comments

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from Meek family of York, which you proposed for deletion, because I think that this article should not be deleted from Wikipedia. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! Colonel Warden (talk) 21:58, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP (I'm still working on it and them: the reason for the structure is that there are three James Meeks and come of the sources are confused and I want to get it right.

Aa42john (talk) 08:25, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- I don't want to work on it if it's going to get deleted. Aa42john (talk) 08:26, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting

There seems to have been a consensus at the AFD that it would be appropriate to split this article into separate articles on the individual members of the family that are notable. Thoughts? Beeblebrox (talk) 16:38, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative proposal

There is insufficient material to support separate articles on the three Lord Mayors, beyond sub-stubs. I would therefore make the alternative suggestion that the article be renamed List of Lord Mayors of York (or should that be Lords Mayor?) and expanded using material from York Mansion House. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 21:58, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Mansion House website has only minimal information beyond names, and does not include titles. But I have a copy of Stevens' Directory of the City of York and neighbourhood for 1881-1882 which has Sir James Meek as the Lord Mayor in 1837, for the second time in 1851 and again 1851, and James Meek jun. as LM in 1856, 1866 and 1867. But only Sir James is listed as alive in 1881. Sources are going to be important particularly where the information differs, and will need to conform to Wikipedia guidelines - see especially WP:RS. So Hrafn's suggestion may be the best first step, and individual articles on the two James Meeks who became Lord Mayors follow only if enough information can be collected about them. --AJHingston (talk) 22:32, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it does provide some titles (e.g. Lawrence Dundas, 1st Earl of Zetland is listed progressively as "Hon. Lawrence Dundas" & "Rt. Hon. Lord Dundas", Sir John Simpson, Sir Wm. Alex Forster-Todd), and to be honest, I don't see why titles are a critical issue. I would further suggest that I cannot see any reason why the official website of the Lord Mayors' residence would not be considered a {{WP:RS]] for a list of Lord Mayors. If anybody really wants to make an issue of this, we can take it to WP:RSN. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 22:49, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The titles are relevant here because there is some question whether Sir James Meek was the first James to be Lord Mayor or the second. My information is that he was the first, but the site does not enlighten us. It is not critical to the proposed list but it does matter in the context of the original article. The Mansion House site is a reliable source, though I have some misgivings about a simple lifting wholesale as a cut and paste from there. Possible copyright issues aside, changes and corrections to the Mansion House site later might not get carried across. I could find out if the compiler of the information on the Mansion House site is willing to contribute directly to the proposed article. But because the information comes from or has been checked against original sources there may be objections from other Wikipedians. --AJHingston (talk) 01:02, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The "changes and corrections" point applies to any online source. The fact that it may change in the future does not alter the fact that it is verifiable now. Also there is only a fairly low probability of this -- the information in question is historical, reasonably simply and clear-cut -- leaving fairly low potential for error. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:05, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]