Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Hetherington


 * 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. Tending to keep this as an avowedly apocryphal person, but perhaps more discussion might yet result in a consensus to merge into top hat.  Sandstein  13:08, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

John Hetherington

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

There's literally no contemporary evidence that this person existed. The British Newspaper Archive's earlier record of this alleged riot is from 1899. Ancestry.com's international edition finds only two John Hetheringtons in late 18th century London, neither of them demonstrably a hatter. Most of the alleged sources didn't even exist in 1797. The whole thing is a mare's nest. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:53, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Not clear what the problem is here, there are clearly secondary sources which refer to the existence as John Hetherington as the inventor of the top hat. The earliest reference I can find to this is from 1899, there may be others. Given that we're not supposed to be doing original research as per WP:OR, the only fall back we have is reliable secondary sources, and these clearly exist. They could, of course, be wrong - but that's not our call to make. JMWt (talk) 12:18, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * We're required to provide reliable secondary sources. The fact that the earliest available sources are a hundred years after the event, and their own alleged sources turn out not to exist, suggests that in this regard those sources are not reliable. AlexTiefling (talk) 12:31, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * You have two problems: first that we are not here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. It is possible that all the sources are wrong about this person and the events, but that's irrelevant, they exist. Second, it is obvious that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. The fact that this does not exist in the digital formats you've briefly used is not evidence that it didn't happen - there are many explanations which could be true - the sources are only available offline, they've been lost, etc. It'd be surprise to find that historical research about an event more than 200 years ago was as easy as looking at a couple of online sources, wouldn't it? On the substantive point, a John Hetherington lived at 12 Buckingham Street between 1764–1817, that's less than a mile from where the shop was supposed to be in the Strand. It might not be the same person, but it might be. There is no way to tell without doing original research, and wikipedia is not the place to do that. So we're back to using the WP:RS. If you don't like it, do the research and write your own book or thesis. JMWt (talk) 13:44, 23 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep - Even if he probably is apocryphal, we have plenty of articles on possibly apocryphal people - I'd cite a few instances, but hey, the most famous example I can think of would probably be blasphemous to namecheck at this point in time. I mean, so many people love him and believe he existed and it would be in horribly bad taste to say he didn't exist. How cruel it would be to deny their existence. Think of all those poor people who would be heartbroken to think that, especially around this time of year, that there was probably never such a person as our Lord and Saviour, he who is known as Santa Claus. Sorry. Got a bit carried away there. Anyway, Hetherington is a well-covered character in the story of the top hat. I personally doubt his actual exixtence, but I don't think we should delete the article - if anything, this is an opportunity to provide reliable sources that challenge the fact of his existence, and informing researchers that such a person possibly didn't really exist. There are plenty of sources claiming he existed. Provide RS to show an alternative viewpoint, but do not delete. Mabalu (talk) 12:43, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Or merge and redirect to the relevant section on Top hat which I think is absolutely appropriate. It's a valid search term and a significant "origin story" which we shouldn't just dismiss - too many RS have taken up the story. Mabalu (talk) 12:50, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd be happy with this outcome. A widespread urban legend can be notable, but it seems misleading to have a separate article about a possibly imaginary person. I'd support merging a better version of the current material into Top hat. AlexTiefling (talk) 13:55, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * delete this can get as much mention as needed in the article on the top hat, no need for a stand alone article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:38, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 23:15, 29 December 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:43, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 17:14, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 17:14, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 17:15, 6 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Proposing that we keep this as an apocryphal story. Foxing the lede to accord with the details, sources in the text.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:04, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep -- it is a pity that no one has managed to trace this in the Hatter's Gazette, and give the primary published source. However the number of times the story has (apparently) been repeated makes it worth having an article to pin down its origin, whether or not the events actually happened.  Some primary historical research would be useful.  Peterkingiron (talk) 17:02, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Just been reading the version from the London Times of 1926 - which appears to reference a relatively recent copy of the Hatter's Gazette as a source of the story - but which does not give the name of the 1797 source. If we could find the "old journal" it describes but does not name, that would be a much better reference. A fascinating but frustrating search, at present the only sources available seem to reference the story second or third hand.. I've seen other citations of news stories in the Times of 16 or 17 January 1797, but I can't see any reference in those editions of the paper. JMWt (talk) 22:21, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * And to correct myself - according to this source the reference later newspapers are using is from the St James Gazette of 16 January 1797. I do not believe this reference is available online, but the source which quotes it appears to be a WP:RS. JMWt (talk) 22:32, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * As our own article reveals, the St James's Gazette only existed 1880-1905, so our RS is not so R in this case. AlexTiefling (talk) 23:02, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * True. I'm concluding this story would only be confirmed with a visit to a long established newspaper archive. JMWt (talk) 07:16, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Ha! I just heard back from the editor of the "Dictionary of Fashion History" who says that the reference came from the previous work of other editors who have been dead for many years. She says that she has no way to verify the information either..! JMWt (talk) 15:45, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: If he was (as suggested by some sources) a member of the Haberdashers' Company, he'd be on their rolls, but that'd need checking. Another source suggests that he was a Mercer, but he's |surname%3AH|year_start%3A1734|year_finish%3A1854&sb=surname&sa=0 not on their rolls. undefinedHydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)  12:28, 13 January 2016 (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.