Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseph Crabtree (fictional polymath)


 * 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. Perhaps they are foolish, but all other editors disagree with DGG's keep. The lone dissent cannot carry the day, and though reliable "outside" coverage is claimed to exist, other editors disagree. Drmies (talk) 23:38, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Joseph Crabtree (fictional polymath)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

While yes, we all understand this is a hoax/fiction, and that doesn't constitute a reason for deletion in and of itself, I can find absolutely no coverage of this topic outside of content aimed solely at fueling or sustaining the "myth". I consider these sources as primary (since they perpetuate the myth, they are part of the topic), and thus this subject seems to fail even the most basic interpretation of WP:GNG. The fact that it is hard to tell reality from fiction apart even when reading the article is damning; we also have a painting in the article and nobody knows who the heck that painting is of, or by. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  04:51, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 11:32, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 11:32, 8 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep as a notable hoax. This is an on-going in-joke that has been perpetrated for 60 years now. Clearly, the article needs to be rewritten to describe the hoax, not the man, but as a long-running hoax that has spawned two volumes and has involved some fairly notable scholars over the years, I believe the concept merits inclusion. I was going to engage in a major rewrite of the article; perhaps I'll create a draft instead and submit that to this discussion for alternative consideration. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 13:21, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I proffer this draft as a proposed alternative to the present version. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 14:07, 8 November 2014 (UTC)


 * delete as not notable. It seems to be an in joke among a small group, a group with the talent and enthusiasm to build this up, but still just a small group at one particular academic institution. And that applies to the draft too; lack of notability isn't fixed by rewriting. To address the notability concerns it needs proper sources, reliable ones independent of the subject. in this case independent of the perpetrators of this hoax.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 17:54, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment I'd be quite happy to say 'yes' to this if the referencing were more independent. And, while I'm no art expert, I'm not quite happy with that picture being labelled as a Henry Raeburn portrait of Crabtree. Even allowing for the apparent poor condition, and the fact that it is not going to be Crabtree anyway (unless the artist was one of the instigators of the hoax), it hasn't got the character, life and style of a Raeburn. It looks more like a cheap small town portrait of a small town lawyer. I could be wrong - but Crabtree it ain't. Peridon (talk) 14:59, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I like Wikidan's version better. That image still needs relabelling though. (If that can be done?) Peridon (talk) 15:03, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * If you click on the image, you will see it is currently under review at PUF, and you are welcome to comment there. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  15:12, 10 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment I like my version better too (duh!), and if the article is kept, I will certainly make the needed edits, but I'm leaning toward delete in agreement with 's assessment: although this hoax is certainly long-running (60 years now!) it really has not gotten any significant coverage. The folks at UCL appear to be doing their best to keep this joke to themselves. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 15:22, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete Non-notable inside joke. OhNo itsJamie Talk 17:34, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. UCL and the Crabtree Foundation are entitled to their in-joke, but Wikipedia is not here to help them spread it. The article was originated and has been largely maintained by two near SPAs, and . It was originated by Drbrizzle in this version, which was a hoax presenting Crabtree as real (the word "fictional" was not added to the title until 2013); and even when forced to admit that is fiction, he is still trying to resist the substitution of "invented" for "revealed" in the lead sentence. If we are to have an article at all, it should be more like WikiDan's version, but I agree with John Blackburne - it is an academic in-joke, a long-running one and not a bad one, but it has not produced the level of independent comment that would constitute notability. JohnCD (talk) 20:54, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep there is sufficient evidence that it is a notable hoax -- clearly WikiDan's version is preferable, and should be substituted, butthis one isn;t bad enough to need deletion first.  DGG ( talk ) 08:55, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Unless I'm missing something, WikiDan's version still doesn't seem to provide any out-of-universe coverage of the hoax, which would be necessary to demonstrate notability. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  19:45, 16 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete unless better sourcing can be found, however, I will offer up  as being one such source, reliable and out-of-universe, but only a sentence or two. Does anything have anything else? --j⚛e deckertalk 01:20, 19 November 2014 (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.