Contents

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roger Fuckebythenavele

Roger Fuckebythenavele (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:13, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:13, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:13, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Under section 2 of WP:PERP, I would argue the nature of the crime is sufficiently unusual enough and there has been sustained coverage of him beyond the casual mention in the court rolls. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 15:05, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is no basis for characterizing his crime as "unusual" in any way - we don't even know what his crime was (Booth: "it is impossible to know what it was as he must have been referred from a lower court"). The only documented infraction is 'failure to appear when summoned to court' for whatever his original crime was, and that is incredibly mundane. If anything, WP:PERP would indicate this should be covered on another page if one exists, and one does, and he is already covered there. Agricolae (talk) 15:42, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Notability is supported by a small scholarly report on this individual, and the historical/linguistic ramifications of his case. A number of articles have been written in the popular press. This is sufficient to meet GNG the requirements, "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]

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. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:21, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• 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. Agricolae (talk) 15:31, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per Agricolae. This is not grist for a standalone article.