Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Apocryphal biographies in the Dictionary of National Biography


 * 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. Whether to merge can continue to be discussed.  Sandstein  07:39, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Apocryphal biographies in the Dictionary of National Biography

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Editor-generated content that started as a critique of a single specific DNB entry and was subsequently renamed to allow for similar critiques of other DNB articles. There is no reference that points to these as examples of a notable phenomenon, it seems entirely to be Original Research/Synth based on the editors' subjective conclusion of what type of correction renders an earlier entry 'apocryphal'. The only references are to the original DNB article and the new ODNB article. This is not an encyclopedic topic, it is a listing of corrigenda and uses as its primary raison d'etre a direct in-text reference to a Wikipedia category. Agricolae (talk) 02:46, 6 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Agricolae (talk) 02:52, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 06:00, 6 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep but make into a list. The article is making some valid points, but might be easier to read if re-typed as a list. Vorbee (talk) 08:09, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The article may be making valid points, but that is not the role of Wikipedia and its editors. They are expressly prohibited from making points if there isn't a source that has made that exact point that they are citing.  Any list of apocryphal DNB pages would be subjective, in terms of what degree of modification rises to the level of making an entry apocryphal.  Likewise, there are innumerable old books that contain errors, and lots of instances where newer editions correct material in older editions, but this does not a valid topic make - it is not Wikipedia's role to point out errors in old books by comparing a new edition to an old one. Agricolae (talk) 08:45, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
 * In a nutshell, to have a list 'List of apocryphal biographies', we need sources that say 'this biography is apocryphal' (and preferably one that says 'these biographies are apocryphal' to indicate that the subject is notable) - we don't get to decide based on criteria that we ourselves have arbitrarily set what represents an 'apocryphal biography' and what doesn't, as would be required by such a page or list, any more than we get to decide which biographies are poorly written, which biographies contain bias, etc., without an explicit statement to that effect in a source. Agricolae (talk) 09:00, 6 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Merge with main Dictionary of National Biography article. It already has sections on Supplements and revisions and the change to Oxford Dictionary of National Biography including 'an ongoing programme of assessing proposed corrections or additions'. If the publication itself has changed or deleted an entry, isn't that a reliable, if rather primary, source? Cavrdg (talk) 09:51, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 11:25, 6 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Merge to DNB, no need to have a separate article. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:21, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep with no objection to merging in the short term. There is, I think, sufficient scholarly coverage of these items that in due course they might unbalance the main DNB article.  All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 11:39, 8 July 2018 (UTC).


 * You say there is enough coverage of these items, but just about all of the examples currently listed are editor-generated, comparing the two editions of DNB and deciding that the difference renders the original version apocryphal - pure WP:Original Research. I don't think anyone is questioning that some of the accounts in the original DNB were problematic, that is part of the reason they did a new edition, but the fact that recent editors found errors in a 19th century compendium is hardly noteworthy, let alone worth a page identifying ones that some editor deems eggregious. Agricolae (talk) 16:55, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Merge per nomination. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:33, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   08:29, 14 July 2018 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: There seems to be rough agreement not to have a straight delete, but there is still a question to be answered on merge/keep (potentially with a rename)
 * Merge to Dictionary of National Biography I think, but it needs to be trimmed before merging. I don't think the individual entries need separate sub-sections, a simple mention is enough. Hzh (talk) 11:52, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep but rename -- I do not see why Kirkman Finlay should be "apocryphal". Gentleman's Magazine is as good a source as a newspaper, but his notability may be less than once through.  MacDuff may indeed be a literary invention: it is a question of how far Shakespeare went beyond his sources.  Brus may well be a real person but NN, save by inheritance.  "Dubious" might be a better epithet than Apocryphal.  However, the question is what to do with the content, which is a historiographic discussion of three items, none of which appear to have a substantive WP article.  Merging to the DNB article would unbalance it; or leave a list with no adequate explanation of its significance.  A mere list would provide no opportunity for the necessary historiography to appear in WPO.  The criterion for inclusion may be articles in original DNB that were not carried forward to ODNB.  Almost all articles were carried forward to ODNB: some were rewritten largely from scratch; others were amended; some were merged into "family" articles.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:08, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 23:30, 20 July 2018 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Striker force Talk 19:56, 27 July 2018 (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.