Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Fox (1622–1666)

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The result was nomination withdrawn, snowball keep. While the conditions of WP:SPEEDYKEEP have not been exactly met, it's abundantly clear at this point that there is a consensus to keep these articles. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:16, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Fox (1622–1666)

(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)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn. Bringing these pathetic sub-stubs to AFD has, probably unsurprisingly, had the effect of drawing them to the attention of enough editors that all now have at least one reference, and some of them have been expanded to the point of being well-formed stubs. AFD is not supposed to be an article-improvement device, but since that's what editors wanted to do is for, it's not a bad outcome, and there's clearly no point in deleting them now.

However, that doesn't alter the problem at the outset, of 10-word articles being carelessly created by a boost-my-creation-count editor whose research appears to have consisted of pasting a line from any redlink found in a disambiguation page. The resulting articles often said even less about the subject than the list does, and their uncategorised and unlinked state meant that they were unlikely to be found even by editors specifically looking for that sort of stub. Since this sort of article is a minority-interest niche, they would likely linger in that half-life for ages. However, in future I will just speedy-delete any such rubbish per A10, and avoid the drama. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:35, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

That response by Boleyn is disingenuous at best:

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
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
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
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

BrownHairedGirl's threat to delete such entries on site looks like an admin who wants to expand her list of "articles I have deleted because I don't like their creator". DuncanHill (talk) 13:24, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Try a little bit of AGF, Duncan. I do very little deletion and I have no intention of speedy-deleting anything which makes a reasonable effort to be a real stub, no matter who created it, but per WP:CDS#A10 I'll delete splat-pasted 10-word content forks whoever creates them. And that's not a threat, it's a promise. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:01, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fails A10 as far as I can see, not a duplication of an existing topic, but rather a split, expressly excluded from A10. You're clutching at straws here. DuncanHill (talk) 18:09, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Especially when viewed in conjunction with her blocks of Boleyn's declared alternative accounts. DuncanHill (talk) 13:38, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Time to add WP:SPLIT to your reading list, Duncan. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:35, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Keep - Being unsourced and being a stub are not valid reasons for deletion. Looks like a perfectly valid stub to me, and last time I checked, stubs aren't evil. Jeni ^(talk) 10:21, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I have no idea (and I don't care) about why Boleyn made all of these, but the people therein do seem to be of minor importance, and the presence of a stub (a) does no harm, and (b) might encourage future users to expand. Boleyn does seem to have made some effort to put in some sources / references since this all began, so if they could do this straight away in future it might avoid all this. Chris (talk) 11:24, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy. I think that the listed articles technically meet the requirements in WP:STUB, but I don't think they meet the spirit. The subjects are notable, that is pretty clear, but the articles need work to become solid stub articles. Move them to Boleyn's userspace and let her work on them there. Then she can move them to live space when they are better sourced. George Blagge should be removed from this AfD. Movementarian (talk) 11:32, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - MPs are regarded as notable for Wikipedia purposes (and I wouldn't want to edit an ec-ncyclopaedia that regarded them otherwise), frankly I find this mass nomination of clearly notable subjects disruptive. DuncanHill (talk) 13:21, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And you find nothing at all disruptive about Boleyn creating dozens of utterly pointless one-line sub-stub articles with no evidence of any research, no sources, etc? As the nomination says, "without prejudice to re-creating it if and when someone has some sources to write even a meaningful stub article". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:46, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing like as disruptive as your misuse of AfD and admin tools to further a grudge. DuncanHill (talk) 13:48, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So creating crap content with no research , and "improving it" by "referencing" it to a paranormal investigation team website is just fine, but trying to stem the flow of this rubbish is a "grudge".

Just as well we're not here to create an encyclopedia, Duncan, or you'd be on very shaky ground. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:58, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - These MPs are inherently notable, and many of the articles above have at least one seemingly reliable source to satsify WP:V. If any of these fail WP:V, I think they should be userfied instead of deleted. P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 14:03, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. These subjects are worthy of separate articles in their own right even if all that can be said with any certainty about any of them is a couple sentences. They fall within the core subjects you'd expect to be covered in an encyclopedia. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:33, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:36, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep All and a trout to the nominator while we're at it. MPs are inherently notable, if you don't like that it's a short stub then fix it. I don't give a damn whether all the creators "articles I've started" contain one line each. We're BUILDING an encyclopedia, so if you're irked by a short article then make it longer. Simples. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 16:57, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It makes absolutely no sense at all to take one line item from a list, strip out some of the info, and place it in a standalone article. Trout me as much as you like, but creating these 10-word "articles" remains folly. It's like chopping up a 20-item paper list into 20 little pieces of paper: useless. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:55, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. Might be a case for merging MPs from this far back into a list article if this is more useful, but you won't make WP more useful by deleting the information completely. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 16:58, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is no suggestion of deleting the info completely. The sub-stub article I nominated contained less information than is in the long-existng list at [[Tamworth (UK Parliament constituency)#MPs_1660-1885]; deleting the sub-stub article would not remove any information from wikipedia, it would just remove a pointless content fork.--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:55, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All MPs are notable. Starting an article (no matter how short) for a missing topic can only be a good thing. There's a huge culture on here of editors who are unable or unwilling to start new articles (that debate's for another day), but once the bare-bones are there, they're only too happy to add and expand. Think of the time wasted on bringing them all to AfD and debating this, when that time/effort could have been used to improve the starting points. Lugnuts (talk) 17:44, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What about the readers who follow their way to one of these 10-word sub-stubs only to find that there is virtually nothing there? That's a waste of their time and a blow to wikipedia's reputation. By all means start a stub article (I have created thousands of them), but these pointless snippets require a lot of work even to bring them up to standard of a very basic stub ... and because they are being systematically created without the relevant categories or stub tags, they are hard for editors to find; they became useless confetti drifting in the wind. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:55, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as no valid or coherent rationale for deletion given. Eliteimp (talk) 18:41, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Tamworth (UK Parliament constituency)#MPs_1660-1885 the articles on Rivers and Bromfield, MPs for whom there is no significant referenced information in the individual article beyond the info contained in that list. If some referenced facts about any MP in the list are found, then create a separate article for that person. Thomas Fox in fact does have considerable information at [1] which is a reference for his article. Fanshawe and Hales also have more info than makes sense in a list. Edison (talk) 19:31, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I thought consensus was that all MPs are notable, but in any case, this MP appears to have a fair amount of good RS info out there about him....Vartanza (talk) 19:47, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. For some where it is not possible to source, such as Richard Yarward, merger is a valid option. Bearian (talk) 20:37, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep. The nomination has been withdrawn, and though one "delete" recommendation still stands, it has no realistic chance of success.—S Marshall T/C 21:29, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge John Hales (MP for Lancaster) to John Hales (MP). Not sure about George Rivers. Keep the rest, though I can understand BHG's frustration at these minimal stubs. (My sympathy for BHG's case has increased substantially since going through these and other similar to provide references & a bit more detail: despite their length, these seem pretty error-prone, & copying unchecked bits at the edge of WP doesn't seem to me to help the project.) Dsp13 (talk) 01:52, 29 June 2010 (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.