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 keep. The majority of those arguing to delete indicate that the individuals probably are notable enough for their own articles, but the family as a whole should not have an article. That is a perfectly valid argument for splitting and/or renaming this article, but it is not a valid argument to delete it. We don't delete articles on admittedly notable subjects just because they are under the wrong name or are poorly organized. Discussion on how to deal with this situation can and should continue on the article's talk page. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:35, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Meek family of York (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Non-notable family; de-prodded with no explanation beyond "because I think that this article should not be deleted ". PamD (talk) 07:01, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• It's a bit rich to complain about the de-PRODding rationale when the PROD rationale itself was "just not notable" and there wasn't even an edit summary provided indicating that deletion had been proposed. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:20, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I think the PROD rationale says what it needs to; you've got a point on edit summary - I did several things in one edit and possibly wrote the summary planning just to tag as ((notable)) then decided to PROD. If it had been a drive-by PROD by Twinkle you'd have had an edit summary: I stub-sorted it, added ((unref)), gave it geog context and, in the next step, moved it to the right title. Sorry I forgot to mention the PROD in edit summary - no intention to hide it. PamD (talk) 06:10, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Obviously notable per WP:POLITICIAN: "mayors of cities of at least regional importance are likely to meet this criterion". This family was six times Lord Mayor of York, Q.E.D. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:03, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The family was not Lord Mayor. Members of the family were. The individuals may pass WP:POLITICIAN, this doesn't.--Yaksar (let's chat) 23:45, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The topic here is the notable members of the family who have the same name. We might rename to a title such as "James Meek (Lord Mayor of York)" to make its scope clearer but this would not be achieved by deletion. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:38, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• If there's not enough known information on them beyond "X was the Lord Mayor of York in year Y and they were the son of Z" to make an actual individual article worthwhile, then perhaps this info could be much more fitting in the article on the Lord Mayor of York, which could use a list of the actual mayors and is in much need of expansion. This would be much more logical rather than having an article on a non-notable subject (this group as a family) to cover it.--Yaksar (let's chat) 17:49, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I agree. This does meet with WP:Politician Dream Focus 11:23, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, per Colonel Warden, as they were "mayors of cities of at least regional importance". --Seksen iki yüz kırk beş (talk) 16:36, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as notability is not inherited. The custom in Wikipedia is to have individual articles about notable people, which may mention relatives, but Wikipedia os not a geneology site and the Meek family did not hold an hereditary title. There appear to be quite a few Meeks in York in the nineteenth century and by no means all are notable. As for the James Meeks who were Lords Mayor, I happen to have a list of Lords Mayor from 1835 to 1881, and that gives Sir James Meek serving in 1837, 1849 and 1851, and James Meek junior in 1856, 1866 and 1867. However, I cannot rule out the possibility that the son was in fact knighted as the same source lists only Alderman Sir James Meek as serving on the council in 1881, and the point is relevant only to establish that there were probably only two or three notable Meeks out of what may have been quite a number of members of the family (even if all the Meeks living in York were in fact related). Wikipedia has lumbered itself with a very unfortunate policy in relation to mayoralties. The office of Lord Mayor of York is held for a year and is almost entirely ceremonial. Whilst it is second in precedence only to the Lord Mayor of London (mayor of London is something quite different) it is hardly of great notability in itself. I'm not sure how many local residents could name the current holder of the office despite the fact that she is a relatively well known local councillor who has served for many years. I doubt that their contemporaries would say either that the James Meeks were notable for having been Lord Mayor, but that the notability came first. It remains the case that there are several positions, especially Leader of the Council, that are more notable than Lord Mayor. --AJHingston (talk) 22:31, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete Having notable people does not make a family notable as a whole. WP:POLITICIAN is not for saying "lots of notable politicians have been in this group, so the group is notable," it's for establishing the notability of the individuals. Notability is not inherited.--Yaksar (let's chat) 23:43, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The point of the article is to document these three notables who all share the same name - James Meek. Note that the James Meek article is about yet another person of this name who is unrelated and refers readers interested in the James Meeks of York to this article. Must we create separate articles for each and every one of these related individuals? How is this sensible and how does deletion help us in this? Colonel Warden (talk) 10:35, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Nope, we don't. But we shouldn't be making an article about a non-notable family either. This info could be limited to the article on the position.--Yaksar (let's chat) 18:47, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree with Yaksar. If List of Lord Mayors of York existed (List of Lord Mayors of London does), then this issue could be solved simply by placing the following hat on James Meek:
  For James Meek, Lord Mayor of York, see List of Lord Mayors of York.
  
  If and when we have sufficient information on any of the individual James Meek who were Lord Mayor of York, we can create an article on him. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:31, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: if this article was on the topic of 'James Meek the father', or his son Sir James Meek, it would pass WP:POLITICIAN as a biography of a Lord Mayor of York. This is not either of those articles. It is an article on an otherwise-obscure family, to which notability is WP:NOTINHERITED from its two notable members. It is not uncommon for prominent people to be the descendants of other prominent people (Thomas Pitt, Pitt the Elder and Pitt the Younger would be an obvious example), but it would be duplicative, WP:INDISCRIMINATE and against current practice to have an article on a family unless that family contains so many prominent members that an article is necessary to keep track of the relationships (the Darwin–Wedgwood family and related Keynes family being obvious examples). The necessity of making such a WP:NOTINHERITED-distinction should be obvious from the sheer number of conceivable groupings that might yield a couple or so notable members, to which we would be opening the floodgates to. Let us write on the subject of what, and who, is notable -- not on the subject of their family trees or other otherwise-obscure groupings to which they might belong to. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 14:20, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment It seems to me that the objection to this article is that it covers three men with the same name, in a family, but if there were separate articles about each man, with reliable sources, then each would be notable by WP:POLITICIAN as a biography of a Lord Mayor of York, as Hrafn says above. If so, then the result of this AfD should be to split the article two or three or perhaps even more ways, each for a particular Lord Mayor of York. It could perhaps be even more ways, of there were someone not with the first name James, yet Lord Mayor of York. --DThomsen8 (talk) 01:28, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• And if there is no more information available than is in this article (although it would need to be sourced before any merge could be considered) maybe it could be included in a much needed list on the page for the position.--Yaksar (let's chat) 03:39, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sources are a problem with this article. I have found a list of Lord Mayors of York on the Mansion House website but unfortunately it does not give titles, so it throws no light on which of them was knighted, but it does otherwise match the information in the 1881 directory. It also confirms another inconsistency with the article because George Hudson (referred to in the article) served as Lord Mayor in 1838, 1839 and 1847, and a James Meek is recorded five times after that, not three as stated. To sort out the family history would require original research, and that is, I'm afraid, a problem with the article as a whole. One reason why it is not a good idea for Wikipedia to admit genealogies unless the information is openly published in reputable sources is that it is so difficult to verify, and as I have indicated I can only establish for certain that there were two James Meeks who are reputable in Wikipedia terms and my information disagrees with the article on which of them was knighted. --AJHingston (talk) 22:29, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:57, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:58, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Individual members of the family may be notable and deserve their own articles, but the family itself isn't. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:28, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Some members of the family probably are notable and so deserve individual articles but the family is not. Possibly, once all qualifying individuals have been added, they could be categorised as 'Meek family of York'. S a g a C i t y (talk) 09:44, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment It is quite possible for a family to be notable without holding a hereditary title, for example the Kennedy family, the Forbes family, the Bach family, or the Freud family. Edward321 (talk) 01:12, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, but those families had/have more members that are more prominent than the Meeks. So does the Pitt family I allude to above, but it doesn't have an article. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:40, 30 April 2011 (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.