→Roger Fuckebythenavele: nothing unusual about failure to appear in court
|
not notable
|
||
Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
:: I didn't make the argument that there isn't [[WP:SIGCOV]], there clearly is, I am just not sure there is enough to say about them to justify a standalone article. If someone wants to give the article the [[Lewis (baseball)]] treatment to get this to FA they can be my guest. [[User:Hemiauchenia|Hemiauchenia]] ([[User talk:Hemiauchenia|talk]]) 15:21, 30 March 2021 (UTC) |
:: I didn't make the argument that there isn't [[WP:SIGCOV]], there clearly is, I am just not sure there is enough to say about them to justify a standalone article. If someone wants to give the article the [[Lewis (baseball)]] treatment to get this to FA they can be my guest. [[User:Hemiauchenia|Hemiauchenia]] ([[User talk:Hemiauchenia|talk]]) 15:21, 30 March 2021 (UTC) |
||
*'''Delete''' - this is effectively [[WP:1E]]. As per nom he has no notability independent of [[Fuck#Early usage]], and that article repeats (almost) the entire content relevant to Roger. Even the article, in referring to John le Fucker and Ric Wyndfuck, is essentially representing itself as a content fork/mirror of [[Fuck#Early usage]]. The material on Wyndfuck is currently not found in [[Fuck#Early usage]], and might be added were it clear this has been discussed by philologists rather than being the the WP:OR of the editor who added it to the Roger page. That said, the article [[John le Fucker]] is similarly situated, having a very brief reference to him as a person and then the rest is philology - just based on the amount of text, these articles are both clearly about the philology of [[Fuck]] and only secondarily about the individual historical Fuckers. If there is to be a spinoff, it would be better to spin off [[Early usages of Fuck]] rather than making separate articles for each instance that are all really about Fuck. [[User:Agricolae|Agricolae]] ([[User talk:Agricolae|talk]]) 15:31, 30 March 2021 (UTC) |
*'''Delete''' - this is effectively [[WP:1E]]. As per nom he has no notability independent of [[Fuck#Early usage]], and that article repeats (almost) the entire content relevant to Roger. Even the article, in referring to John le Fucker and Ric Wyndfuck, is essentially representing itself as a content fork/mirror of [[Fuck#Early usage]]. The material on Wyndfuck is currently not found in [[Fuck#Early usage]], and might be added were it clear this has been discussed by philologists rather than being the the WP:OR of the editor who added it to the Roger page. That said, the article [[John le Fucker]] is similarly situated, having a very brief reference to him as a person and then the rest is philology - just based on the amount of text, these articles are both clearly about the philology of [[Fuck]] and only secondarily about the individual historical Fuckers. If there is to be a spinoff, it would be better to spin off [[Early usages of Fuck]] rather than making separate articles for each instance that are all really about Fuck. [[User:Agricolae|Agricolae]] ([[User talk:Agricolae|talk]]) 15:31, 30 March 2021 (UTC) |
||
*'''Delete''' - per Agricolae. This is not grist for a standalone article. |
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
There's zero indication that this individual is separately notable from fuck. All sources discuss this individual in relation to a contention that their name represents the oldest known usage of fuck, and it only deserves a brief mention in Fuck#Early_usage where it is already mentioned. Otherwise there is nothing to say about this person other than that they were declared an outlaw, which isn't enough to justify an article. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:13, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." I could imagine us choosing to follow Hemiauchenia's suggestion that we place this information in Fuck#Early_usage, but I prefer a standalone article where any additional scholarship on this case in particular will be placed. -Darouet (talk) 15:12, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]