Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Cussans

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 delete. There's no point keeping this open for 7 days. It almost certainly qualifies for speedy deletion A7 (there's no claim of notability), it's copied verbatim from a book (whilst it probably isn't a copyvio due to age, that's not a good idea either) and anything further is a waste of everyone's time. Black Kite (talk) 15:41, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

William Cussans

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Unnontable person with an article reading like a story. Cenobialis (talk) 13:32, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per WP:A7. Best, GPL93 (talk) 13:51, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The content is copied from the single source here. That source makes it clear that he is not a notable individual. No other reference exists, fails WP:BIO QuiteUnusual (talk) 13:54, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- You didn't help in checking out the sources by removing the interwiki hyperlink to s:en:Nollekens and his times, volume 2/Cussans from the article. Uncle G (talk) 14:13, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Uncle G: Thanks for pointing that out. I fixed the link to John Thomas Smith's Nollekens. cygnis insignis 15:04, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - A broken link to another Wikiproject isn't massively helpful given it isn't a reliable source and pretty much duplicates the content of the other reference. But you are welcome to your opinion. QuiteUnusual (talk) 15:08, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - You said the source doesn't exist, which is not terribly polite. cygnis insignis 15:14, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:53, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:53, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:53, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:54, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not seeing any real notability.Slatersteven (talk) 16:57, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, of course, hello again. cygnis insignis 17:08, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@QuiteUnusual:, meet @Slatersteven:, he would probably point out that what you said is a personal attack. cygnis insignis 17:12, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is not about me, please stop these distractions.Slatersteven (talk) 17:16, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the article because it is not notable itself and also lack of reliable sources for covering the Article subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Forest90 (talk • contribs)

How that could be known by glancing at something is a mystery to me. Please remember to sign your !votes. cygnis insignis 19:28, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete My number one objection is not that the subject is not notable (he clearly is not), but that the article is not in fact an encyclopedia article. It is an annotated old document masquarading as an encyclopedia article. Some of the typos I fixed almost make me think the old document was scanned, otherwise I find some of them hard to believe. While in theory these problems could be fixed, with the subject so clearly failing the general notability guidelines for people there is just no reason to expend energy in fixing the article. Plus, some contributions are just so egregiously at odds with what an encyclopedia article should be we ought to just remove them for violating the basics of encyclopedia articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:22, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The old document was scanned, you are absolutely correct, this can be verified by looking at the source provided. Had you heard of the biographer before? cygnis insignis 06:00, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It appears that this person was mentioned as an interesting local character in a couple of old books in the 1800s. With no other sources on the supposed Mr. Cussans, it is entirely possible those authors made him up, and even if he was real he does not merit an encyclopedia article just because he was mentioned in an old book. He has no evidence of notability as a historical figure. Also the article creator has admitted above that the whole thing is copied word-for-word from a book, which is either a copyright violation or just plain lazy and unethical. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:02, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Doomsdayer520: please strike that comment. cygnis insignis 19:14, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I stand by my assessment. Wikipedia is for writers, not copiers. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:44, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know what quotation marks are. And that an accusation of copyvio is very serious? cygnis insignis 14:58, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes to all of the above. It's too bad that none of your diversion tactics make old Mr. Cussans any more notable. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:01, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so you are aware you making a personal attack. I see how productive and helpful you are, that is not at all, and there is no need to pay you any mind. cygnis insignis 15:11, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the lazy comment is wrong, but we do have rules prohibiting copyright violations.Slatersteven (talk) 09:36, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But … what is your point. It pretty obviously isn't. cygnis insignis 13:34, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My point is he should not have called you lazy. There are other ways of putting it, such as plagerist.Slatersteven (talk) 15:01, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Quotes are not plagiarism either. cygnis insignis 15:11, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And there is plagiarism and a plagiarist, you understand that difference too? cygnis insignis 15:13, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You admit you coped the whole article, that is not quoting. A quote is "and they all lived happily ever after" not the whole story. Yes (buy the way) I do know the difference hence why I did not say "it would have been fair to call him a plagiarism".Slatersteven (talk) 15:17, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I moved it to my user space, with a view to perhaps restoring it to main space. The redirect can be deleted and discussion closed. cygnis insignis 19:27, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Leaving a redirect in main space to the draft. Thus the main space page William Cussans still needs deletion.Slatersteven (talk) 09:40, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So you fixed that? cygnis insignis 13:35, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the redirect yes.Slatersteven (talk) 14:59, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (and don't userfy unless completely rewritten with new sources and new content that at least meets the A7 threshold). Agree with Johnpacklambert above; this is neither a suitable topic for Wikipedia, nor in fact is it a Wikipedia article at all; it's just a copy-pasted paragraph from a random, decidedly non-encyclopedic 19th-century work. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:43, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While this may be an amusing anecdote, it's not an encyclopedia article, and there's no evidence of notability. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 15:19, 6 June 2019 (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.