Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 10:03, 28 June 2010

Thomas Fox (1622–1666)

Thomas Fox (1622–1666) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

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

Unsourced sub-stub or a 16th century Member of Parliament (in the pre-1707 Parliament of England), no evidence of any possibility of expansion. This is not an article, it is a list entry, and I see no reasonable prospect of expansion beyond a one-line stub. It should be deleted without prejudice to re-creating it if and when someone has some sources to write even a meaningful stub article.

Per WP:POLITICIAN, Members of Parliament are presumed to be notable ... but notability of a topic does mean that it is any way helpful to the reader to create a one-line sub-stub article which says no more than can be found at Tamworth_(UK_Parliament_constituency)#MPs_1660-1885. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:56, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are all unsourced one-line sub-stubs with no reasonable prospect of expansion:

John Lane (MP) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Thomas Fanshawe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

John Hales (MP for Lancaster) ‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

George Rivers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Robert Bromfield (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

George Blagge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

All of the "articles" in this nomination were PRODded by me, and in each case the PRODs were contested by the creator, who edits under 3 accounts and switches between them frequently: Boleyn (talk · contribs), Boleyn2 (talk · contribs) and Boleyn3 (talk · contribs). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:08, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Keep I've just expanded it slightly, and they all have room for expansion. It being very short isn't grounds for deletion, it meets WP:POLITICIAN - efforts should be made to expand rather than delete a notable person's article. Boleyn2 (talk) 08:13, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

• Delete all The only information given is the fact that each was a member of Parliment. Except the first one has a second item about his buying and then selling a house. Even the statements that each was a politican seems to be original research. Do we have a way of knowing that politics was the main interest of any? Kitfoxxe (talk) 08:23, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

• Comment these are all very recently created and are works in progress; even the last comment no long er reflects the article because I'm working on them right now. Boleyn2 (talk) 08:25, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

That response by Boleyn is disingenuous at best:

1. Boleyn has been creating sub-stub articles like these for at least 5 weeks: unsourced, uncategorised, and containing nothing more than the bare fact that the person existed. Of these articles in this nomination, for example John Hales (MP for Lancaster) was created a month ago and remained a one-line sub-stub when AFDed. It is not to be a work-in-progress: it's an abandoned, unsourced sub-stub
2. Boleyn has created dozens of similar one-line stubs, some of which I have listed in a series of messages at Boleyn's talkpage, to which I have had no response ... and others of which have been listed on Boleyn's "articles I created" list. These dozens of articles are also not works-in-progress: they are abandoned, unsourced sub-stubs
3. Boleyn's sources for "expanding" Thomas Fox (1622–1666) are:
   • A pub website: http://www.tamworth-heritage-pubs.co.uk/moathouse.htm
   • A paranormal investigation team website: http://www.spiritsofthenight.co.uk/Moat%20House/Moat%20House%20History.htm
4. A 1-line mention in a paper on website, which mentions him only by name: https://lra.le.ac.uk/bitstream/2381/361/1/hoppera.pdf

A combination of "references" to pub+paranormal+trivia is no basis for keeping an article. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:01, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Keep - So we are now deleting stubs en masse?. What next start class articles? Why not make a rule only FA class articles can exist in wikipedia. At which point does the nom accept something as an article?. no evidence of any possibility of expansion. Cursory google searches reveal enough sources for expansion --Sodabottle (talk) 08:57, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Well-formed stub articles are great, but these are not well-formed stubs. What on earth is the benefit to readers or editors of creating (or keeping) unsourced, uncategorised one-liners say less about the subject than the list articles they refer to? These seem to be me to do nothing other than to allow Boleyn to add the titles to hir "articles I created" list. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 09:05, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

If you had bothered searching in good faith, you would have found this to source the article. If you want to stop Boleyn from creating such stubs, talking with her/him is the way to go. If she/he didnt listen, maybe you could have considered blocking etc. Please do not started deleting perfectly valid articles.--Sodabottle (talk) 09:10, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

A one-line sub-stub is not a "valid article", it's a factoid. If that's acceptable, why not just get a bot to create hundreds of thousands of unreferenced, uncategorised one-line sub0stub articles ? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:27, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

So how many lines should it have to become a stub?. WP:STUB gives no minimum criteria. In this case, the article mentioned the subject's name, his claim to notability (MP) and his yob-yod. And thats 3 "factoids". Was that not enough?. And if it is unreferenced either tag it or source it yourself. This is not a BLP. Merely being uncategorised, unreferenced and being a sentence long is not enough to delete a non-BLP. If your purpose was to stop Boleyn then this is not the way to go. If you want to stop the creation of unreferenced, uncategorised stubs then change the policy in WP:STUB.--Sodabottle (talk) 09:42, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:STUB may not explicitly set any minimum criteria, but a bit of commonsense says to me that an unsourced, uncategorised one-liner which says less than the corresponding list entry is a pointless thing, and that creating dozens of such things so that the editor can make more entries in their "articles I created" list is at best pointless and at worst disruptive ... and while I am bemused to see that you disagree, I am pleased to find in a re-reading WP:CSD, I find that WP:CSD#A10 agrees. So In future I'll just delete this sort of junk on sight. That's a simple, quick non-bureaucratic solution to Boleyn's practice of creating of non-articles to bulk out her "articles I created" list. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:03, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

• I think a sourced stub on a notable subject is preferable to not having an article on the subject. Therefore these articles should probably be kept. I'm not seeing anything problematic about User:Boleyn2's actions here. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:15, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

  Yes, a sourced stub is great. But the whole point of this nomination is that Boleyn has been creating dozens of unsourced sub-stubs. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:27, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

• AfD debates (Biographical)
• AfD debates