Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexander Day


 * 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   no consensus. Courcelles 04:10, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Alexander Day

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Convicted of four counts of fraud, concerning goods totalling less than £200 (a substantial sum at the time, but not a fortune). A relatively minor crime then as now; this fellow only got two years in prison, in an age when you could be hanged for stealing a loaf of bread. The subject of the article clearly fails to meet WP:CRIMINAL. The Newgate Calendar is not a reliable source; the proceedings of the Old Bailey is a primary court source. That leaves the fact that a radio station discussed Alexander Day as part of a program where they read from old court proceedings to provide interesting tales of how life was lived in the 18th century; and a newspaper mentioned said program in its weekly radio and TV listings. This is not significant coverage. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:01, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions.  — —Tom Morris (talk) 07:45, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 6 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete This guy doesn't seem very significant as thieves go. Google leads to Wikipedia itself and some other people named Alexander Day. D O N D E groovily   Talk to me  03:55, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment If this page is deleted, Alexander Day (artist) should be moved to Alexander Day D O N D E groovily   Talk to me  03:55, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep If the goal of Wikipedia is to produce an encyclopedia of information relevant in 100 years, then here is someone who is known 300 years later. He may not seem notable now, but he was apparently notable at the time.--v/r - TP 19:05, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:36, 14 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I disagree with above. I see no evidence that he was well-known or notable 300 years ago. The Newgate Calendar was a journal type of publication, listing multiple different crimes in each issue, essentially the day's Nancy Grace. Most topics covered on Nancy Grace that aren't covered elsewhere aren't considered notable, and when you make it 300 years old, it's even less notable.  D O N D E groovily   Talk to me  01:09, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The very fact that we're talking about someone who lived 300 years ago shows significance. Will anyone be talking about you or I in 300 years?--v/r - TP 12:54, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep The subject is clearly notable, being documented in detail in reliable sources such as The Criminal Recorder: or, Biographical sketches of notorious public characters]. Notability does not expire and, in any case, the subject is still being noticed in mainstream media.  Warden (talk) 12:50, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The Criminal Recorder is most certainly not a reliable source. From its title page it claims to include "a variety of curious and singular cases, anecdotes, &c". Anecdotes? Clearly very much the Judge Judy of its day. What do we know about its editorial control, and its reputation for fact-checking and accuracy? Well, we know that it claimed to be written by "a student of the inner temple", but I doubt we know if that's true, or indeed which particular student it was. Not a reliable source. As for "still being noticed in mainstream media" - well, which mainstream media, other than the one single radio program that happened to be doing readings from old court records to provide an entertaining dramatisation of 18th century life? The guy wasn't notable in the 18th century, and notability is not temporary - if he wasn't receiving significant coverage in reliable sources then, or now, or any time in between, then he's not notable. Happening to be a thief born a long time ago, doesn't change what WP:CRIMINAL says - the bar for inclusion is that "The motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual—or has otherwise been considered noteworthy—such that it is a well-documented historic event." --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:04, 16 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - notable. also per colonel wardens reasonings. --BabbaQ (talk) 19:10, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 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.