Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseph Pride


 * 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. Notability depends on the existence of significant coverage in independent secondary sources, which do not appear to exist in this case. RL0919 (talk) 11:57, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Joseph Pride

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Original research on a non-notable person. We have an article on his father but notability is not inherited – also I can't find any sources that mention Thomas Pride having had a son, like this article says: "his existence remained hidden from all official records except for his gravestone". Article doesn't make a credible claim of notability, practically no coverage of this person exists, he is mentioned in passing in this source which lists some immigrants to Maine but there's no way of finding out which Joseph Pride it's talking about. The rest is synthesis and personal family knowledge.

Author declined PROD with the reason: – Thjarkur (talk) 10:21, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. – Thjarkur (talk) 10:21, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. – Thjarkur (talk) 10:21, 2 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Does the editor even know who charles 1st was? He was the only King of England Executed. This is about who his executioner was, and it presents credible evidence in a family history, supported by 200 years of census data, and direct testimony from members of the family who all heard it first hand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DaniePride (talk • contribs) 17:14, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
 * We report what reliable sources have said. Unpublished family legends and census data is original research. – Thjarkur (talk) 17:38, 2 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete unless significantly better sources are found and presented here or included in the article. I declined an A7 speedy on this, because there are claims of significance] here, that is statements which if supported by sources would establish or help to establish notability. But in an AfD discussion we look at the sourcing, n it just isn't there. If someone did a WP:HEY type of improvement, my view might well change, but that is what it would take. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 20:28, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
 * it does no good to be snarky here. I am well aware of who Charles I of England was, and I am confident that Thjarkur is also. The question isn't whether the events of Charles's reign and his execution were historically significant -- they clearly were. The question is if this Joseph Pride was in fact the executioner, or even involved in the execution. We can only go by sources, and a family's oral tradition doesn't amount to a reliable source. If some scholar listens to that tradition, does research into available records, including family records, and publishes a book or a substantial magazine article asserting that Joseph Pride was the executioner, that would be a source that we could cite. But nothing like that is in the article at this point, and two experienced editors say they have looked and been unable to find any such source. If you can find and offer published source, this is the time. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 20:28, 2 November 2019 (UTC).


 * Why is a census document considered invalid ?
 * Also there are multiple mentions of Joseph in the New Model Army, Thomas's Son. I will provide them when I have time. But if I can not cite the US Census it seems quite worthless. If you understand the role of Prides Purge, the executioner choice would almost naturally go to him. This is noteworthy because it is supported by a 200 year tradition of naming the first born Joseph and the second born Henry and then Thomas, and an oral tradition that was passed down with the admonishment that "you will tell your children". — Preceding unsigned comment added by DaniePride (talk • contribs) 21:55, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
 * response A census document is a WP:PRIMARY source, and as such is not invalid, but of only limited use here. We cannot interpret of analyze primary sources --read the link. What we mostly need are secondary sources, sources that put together and analyze primary sources. A census document may be able to tell us that there were people of certain names and ages living in a specific place. It won't tell us how they were related, and it certainly won't tell us how any of them were involved with the execution of Charles I. An oral tradition, I'm afraid, is not published and is not something that our readers can erify unless someone records the tradition and publishes it. That could be done, but Wikipedia is not the place for it. If it were done, then perhaps that publication could be cited, if it seemed to be reliable. If there aren't published secondary sources, there won't be a Wikipedia article. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 23:46, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:18, 3 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete -- Utterly NN - notability is not inherited. His father was highly notable.  If the son (the subject) served in New Model Army, even as an officer, it would not be enough to make him notable.  The story about an attempt to hang him is not credible: the ire of the Cavaliers fell upon the regicides at the Restoration, but not ordinary soldiers, who continued to be paid by the post-Restoration state for a period.  I suspect that the story of what occurred subsequently got exaggerated in the telling.  I am not doubting that Joseph became a settler, but so did many people, equally NN.  Peterkingiron (talk) 18:26, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Del per arguments above and nominator – I agree this article is unsuitable for inclusion. I also think the author may have a potential conflict-of-interest because they are using original research.  If someone else wrote the article and found neutral, third-party sources, then I would have chosen "Keep" but by the username, I think it may be best to delete.   Awesome  Aasim  21:33, 4 November 2019 (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.