Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Dover (Cotswold Games)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is the current revision of this page, as edited by Jonesey95 (talk | contribs) at 19:07, 13 October 2023 (Fix Linter errors.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.
(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
- 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 article meets all policies and guidelines for inclusion. It is appropriate to bring contested merge discussions to AfD to see if there is consensus for such a merge. After discussion here, no consensus for a merge was found. SilkTork *YES! 08:20, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Robert Dover (Cotswold Games)[edit]
- Robert Dover (Cotswold Games) (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)
Robert Dover is notable only for starting the Cotswold Olimpick Games. There isn't anything else remotely notable about him that isn't already mentioned in that article, and there never will be.
Its silly to have such a short stub article. Better to delete it, and redirect it to the Games article instead. Parrot of Doom 21:36, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Cotswold Olimpick Games, as I tried to do earlier. Very little is known about Dover other than his organisation of the Games, and it's impossible to discuss him without focusing on the 17th-century political and religious significance of the Games. Malleus Fatuorum 22:45, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It appears that the proposer does not in fact want the article deleted but rather redirected. Presumably there will be zero support for deletion. Should this be closed now? Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 06:18, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The article is about Dover. He is an important part of the Cotswold Olimpick Games, as founder, but it has a 400-year history, and it unbalances the COG article to require it to maintain the life of Dover as a sub-article. What happens if later editors decide to pare down the material on Dover in COG? Where does that material go. Answer: the article on Robert Dover. QED. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 06:36, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The "sub-article" you allude to amounts to less than a single paragraph. On the other hand, almost 50% of this one is about the Games, not about Dover, so it's rather easy to see which article is unbalanced. Malleus Fatuorum 14:09, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I said it was the requirement to maintain that material that would unbalance the article. In terms of word-count, your "almost 50%" is almost exactly one-third. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 16:53, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it is precisely 42%. Your maintenance argument is an empty one, as there is nothing to maintain. It is exceedingly unlikely that any further light will be shone on Robert Dover's life other than what we already know, which is almost nothing beyond his involvement in the Games. Malleus Fatuorum 17:00, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Down to one-fifth now. Your confident predictions about further information on Dover seem misplaced, since I have just added a small piece about his possible involvement with the Gog Magog games (with two references). Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 17:20, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No, you haven't. You've simply added some unsubstantiated speculation about something he may have been aware of. But what's very strange is that you haven't troubled to mention his recusant background, in particular the Catholic education that he received while in Wisbech Castle. Malleus Fatuorum 17:26, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have accurately reflected what a second source (Galligan) says. The speculation, if that is indeed what it be, is Galligan's not mine. Do you have a source that refutes it? I haven't yet got round to further expanding the article, please feel free to do so with the material you describe: thank you for your even-handed bringing it forward in support of my point. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 17:31, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- How can ill-informed speculation be refuted? The fact that the real authorities on Dover and the Games do not mention any influence on him from the Gog Magog Games ought to speak for itself. Malleus Fatuorum 17:35, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The suspicion that "the real authorities" are the ones that support your point is no doubt unworthy. The point I'm trying to make is that within a day or so of serious attention, two lots of material -- the Gog Magog Olimpicks and the Catholic education at Wisbech -- have surfaced. This comprehensively refutes the argument made by the nominator that There isn't anything else remotely notable about him that isn't already mentioned in that article, and there never will be. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 18:06, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I see, the accusations of dishonesty on my part have now started. The Games article uses the undisputed experts in the field, including Francis Burns, secretary of the Robert Dover's Games Society. None of them support your claim, and neither is it what the source you have used says; you have embellished what it actually says to suit your own ends. His Catholic upbringing is significant to Dover's story for a reason connected with the naming of the Games as the Olimpicks, as the Games article explains, nothing more. How are you going to explain that in this forever-destined-to-be-a-stub? Malleus Fatuorum 18:18, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I unreservedly withdraw any imputation of dishonesty, and apologise for any offense. Please be so kind as to do the same with your use of the word "embellish". Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 18:50, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I see, the accusations of dishonesty on my part have now started. The Games article uses the undisputed experts in the field, including Francis Burns, secretary of the Robert Dover's Games Society. None of them support your claim, and neither is it what the source you have used says; you have embellished what it actually says to suit your own ends. His Catholic upbringing is significant to Dover's story for a reason connected with the naming of the Games as the Olimpicks, as the Games article explains, nothing more. How are you going to explain that in this forever-destined-to-be-a-stub? Malleus Fatuorum 18:18, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The suspicion that "the real authorities" are the ones that support your point is no doubt unworthy. The point I'm trying to make is that within a day or so of serious attention, two lots of material -- the Gog Magog Olimpicks and the Catholic education at Wisbech -- have surfaced. This comprehensively refutes the argument made by the nominator that There isn't anything else remotely notable about him that isn't already mentioned in that article, and there never will be. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 18:06, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- How can ill-informed speculation be refuted? The fact that the real authorities on Dover and the Games do not mention any influence on him from the Gog Magog Games ought to speak for itself. Malleus Fatuorum 17:35, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have accurately reflected what a second source (Galligan) says. The speculation, if that is indeed what it be, is Galligan's not mine. Do you have a source that refutes it? I haven't yet got round to further expanding the article, please feel free to do so with the material you describe: thank you for your even-handed bringing it forward in support of my point. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 17:31, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No, you haven't. You've simply added some unsubstantiated speculation about something he may have been aware of. But what's very strange is that you haven't troubled to mention his recusant background, in particular the Catholic education that he received while in Wisbech Castle. Malleus Fatuorum 17:26, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Down to one-fifth now. Your confident predictions about further information on Dover seem misplaced, since I have just added a small piece about his possible involvement with the Gog Magog games (with two references). Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 17:20, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it is precisely 42%. Your maintenance argument is an empty one, as there is nothing to maintain. It is exceedingly unlikely that any further light will be shone on Robert Dover's life other than what we already know, which is almost nothing beyond his involvement in the Games. Malleus Fatuorum 17:00, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I said it was the requirement to maintain that material that would unbalance the article. In terms of word-count, your "almost 50%" is almost exactly one-third. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 16:53, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The "sub-article" you allude to amounts to less than a single paragraph. On the other hand, almost 50% of this one is about the Games, not about Dover, so it's rather easy to see which article is unbalanced. Malleus Fatuorum 14:09, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(←)However, I don't accept your reasoning on the Catholic upbringing. Firstly, this is potential material that was not in the article at a time when the nominator stated that there could never be anything new. Secondly, to maintain that it's significant only because of its connection to the games is petitio principii. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 18:54, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Whether you accept my reasoning or not is immaterial to me, as I am simply reflecting what is said by the reliable sources you so studiously ignore in favour of school text books that you choose to misinterpret, and, yes, embellish. Malleus Fatuorum 19:15, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I reject those allegations, and note that you do not (cannot?) refute my points. Clearly this part of the discussion has degenerated into personal recrimination. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 19:23, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Is Advanced PE for Edexcel, a school textbook, really considered a reliable source? Nev1 (talk) 17:23, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Why not? Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 17:26, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Because it's a school textbook? Malleus Fatuorum 17:27, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- And why would that make it unreliable? Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 17:32, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- So you've never known a school text book to over simplify because of its audience or just get things wrong because, well, it is just a school textbook? Where do you think school textbooks get their information from? They're not usually at the forefront of what Wikipedia would term original research. The original, higher-quality source needs to be found and used instead. Nev1 (talk) 17:43, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The text book doesn't appear to support the claims inserted by Kenilworth - see [1]. Also, it does indeed simplify the subject, as the other sources I've read are ambiguous about the year in which the games started, where as this is certain. Parrot of Doom 17:50, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it does. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 18:06, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- So are you going to find the original source, or are you going to insist on using second-rate ones instead? Nev1 (talk) 18:08, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Secondary != second-rate. Where did I insist on using this source? Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 18:56, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course secondary sources aren't second rate, but if you bother reading what I said it's clear I didn't say that. I said a school textbook is inadequate. You added it, so take some responsibility. It's already been demonstrated that the source over simplifies things. If you don't remove it, I will as it's clearly not good enough. Nev1 (talk) 19:26, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Simplifies != over-simplifies. Where was the latter demonstrated? Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 19:36, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course secondary sources aren't second rate, but if you bother reading what I said it's clear I didn't say that. I said a school textbook is inadequate. You added it, so take some responsibility. It's already been demonstrated that the source over simplifies things. If you don't remove it, I will as it's clearly not good enough. Nev1 (talk) 19:26, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Secondary != second-rate. Where did I insist on using this source? Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 18:56, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If you think the two books used support the claims you've entered into this article, then why not join in the discussion on the talk page? It seems to me as though you're searching Google Books for any hint of this subject, and using the results to support your own research. Its easy to prove me wrong. Parrot of Doom 18:19, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not refusing to, I'm just trying to do several things at once here! Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 18:48, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- So are you going to find the original source, or are you going to insist on using second-rate ones instead? Nev1 (talk) 18:08, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it does. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 18:06, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The text book doesn't appear to support the claims inserted by Kenilworth - see [1]. Also, it does indeed simplify the subject, as the other sources I've read are ambiguous about the year in which the games started, where as this is certain. Parrot of Doom 17:50, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- So you've never known a school text book to over simplify because of its audience or just get things wrong because, well, it is just a school textbook? Where do you think school textbooks get their information from? They're not usually at the forefront of what Wikipedia would term original research. The original, higher-quality source needs to be found and used instead. Nev1 (talk) 17:43, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- And why would that make it unreliable? Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 17:32, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Because it's a school textbook? Malleus Fatuorum 17:27, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Why not? Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 17:26, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The Williams reference also contains material on Dover's reputation as a wit and poet, not remotely connected with the games. A second refutation of the nominator's argument, after MF's suggestion of his recusant education. (And a third by my reading of Galligan). Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 19:50, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yet another reference with further information, not connected with the games: this time family data. That article on the Cotswold Olimpick Games is going to look a little top-heavy if this is all copied across. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 21:21, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Dover has a fairly long biography in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. If he is notable enough for a biography in the definitive dictionary of British biography, first compiled over 200 years after his death, how on earth is he not notable enough for an article on Wikipedia, which contains articles on any number of minor contemporary celebrities who will have been forgotten about in a fraction of that time? -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:50, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- (ec) It's not a simple question of notability, it's a matter of how would the subject best be served on Wikipedia. If, theoretically, all the information on Dover was incorporated into the article on the Cotswold Games as part for the background to the subject, exactly what would be the point of having a separate article for Dover? The ODNB entry says as much about the games as it does about Dover himself; more in fact. Nev1 (talk) 15:57, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Our article as it stands is informative, well-referenced and says plenty about Dover himself. His notability is established by his contribution in founding the Games and the fact that he is the subject of a biography in the DNB and mentions in plenty of other sources. I really don't think those wanting to delete the article have a leg to stand on. In which ways does he fail Wikipedia's notability guidelines? The answer, quite clearly, is none. I do not believe that Wikipedia would be best-served in the slightest by merging this information into the Cotswold Games article. There is, I know, a tendency for some (and that is some) editors to prefer long, general, multi-section articles over shorter, more specific articles. I'm afraid I don't subscribe to that view and it is not a view which is particularly mandated by any of our policies or guidelines. If a 3+ paragraph article can be written about Dover then that article is clearly worthwhile. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:12, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 05:47, 8 July 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.