Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Multrare

Robert Multrare

 * 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 '''Article deleted as the creation of a banned or blocked editor, see Sockpuppet investigations/Moutray2010. Dougweller (talk) 09:15, 21 February 2014 (UTC)'''.


 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

fails WP:GNG. Article fails to make notability clear. The Banner talk 20:40, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete Very unorganized and disjointed. Starts off as a biography and then diverges all over the place. While the subject MIGHT be notable, article fails to make that clear. Author needs to take this back to either his own user space or Articles for Creation and start from the beginning. Safiel (talk) 21:40, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

1.do not delete 2. Does NOT fail ,just because you 'suspect' it's not notable,does not mean it is not notable. Too quick to jump to decision. According to Wikipedia guidelines: Both in common law and in civil law, a rebuttable presumption (in Latin, praesumptio iuris tantum) is an assumption made by a court, one that is taken to be true unless someone comes forward to contest it and prove otherwise.

2. If the article meets our criteria for speedy deletion, one can use a criterion-specific deletion tag listed on that page.

3. For articles of unclear notability, deletion should be a last resort.

If an article fails to cite sufficient sources to demonstrate the notability of its subject, look for sources yourself

4. If appropriate sources cannot be found after a good-faith search for them, consider merging the article's verifiable content into a broader article providing context.[7] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Odinsburgh14 (talk • contribs) 03:03, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

1.do not delete 2. Does NOT fail ,just because you 'suspect' it's not notable,does not mean it is not notable. Too quick to jump to decision. According to Wikipedia guidelines: Both in common law and in civil law, a rebuttable presumption (in Latin, praesumptio iuris tantum) is an assumption made by a court, one that is taken to be true unless someone comes forward to contest it and prove otherwise.

Presume it is notable, otherwise PROVE it is Not notable. An important area of Edinburgh is named after the name. Edit, revise as necessary , however Edinburgh place names are notable, especially when there is misunderstanding as to the underlying history eg : multrees walk ,being confused mistakenly with 'mulberry' rather than a persons name 'moultrie'

2. If the article meets our criteria for speedy deletion, one can use a criterion-specific deletion tag listed on that page.

3. For articles of unclear notability, deletion should be a last resort.

If an article fails to cite sufficient sources to demonstrate the notability of its subject, look for sources yourself

4. If appropriate sources cannot be found after a good-faith search for them, consider merging the article's verifiable content into a broader article providing context.[7]

The issue might be with the contributor,than the article. Why not try and edit to improve the article. . Deletion is the last resort and has not been thoroughly discussed. Rather than being a wrecker ,deleting rashly ,why not specify the objections and price he is not notable. I've given my reasons why he is notable if decided by David I of Scotland who granted the lands and the placenames,that is named after, is endorsement enough

It's not Mulberrys Walk ,it's 'Multrees' (Moultrie's) Walk ,after Moultrie on Moultrie's Hill If Multrees Walk is notable enough to have an article on Wikipedia ,why is the person who was granted the Land ,Moultrie(Multrar) not considered notable ? In who's opinion?

PS: 1. It does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, and this case has not been made 2. Does not meet the Criteria for deletion There are 14 reasons given in the criteria for deletion: Which of the 14 reasons does the Proposer for deletion decide a met? Is there consensus ? Among whom? 3. Are there alternatives to deletion ? If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page. Vandalism to a page's content can be reverted by any user. Disputes over page content are usually not dealt with by deleting the page, except in severe cases. The content issues should be discussed at the relevant talk page, and other methods of dispute resolution should be used first, such as listing on Wikipedia:Requests for comments for further input. Deletion discussions that are really unresolved content disputes may be closed by an uninvolved editor, and referred to the talk page or other appropriate forum. If an article on a notable topic severely fails the verifiability or neutral point of view policies, it may be reduced to a stub, or completely deleted by consensus at WP:AfD. The Arbitration Committee has topic-banned editors who have serially created biased articles. Disagreement over a policy or guideline is not dealt with by deleting it. Similarly, issues with an inappropriate user page can often be resolved through discussion with the user. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Odinsburgh14 (talk • contribs) 03:24, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the topic itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, or vendor) have actually considered the topic notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it – without incentive, promotion, or other influence by people connected to the topic matter.

Multree / Moultrie / Multrar are independently notable ,whether on Wikipedia or Not

I am an Inclusionist,whereas the Proposer for Deletion. , is a Deletionist.

I've given some reason for inclusion

The Deletionist can give reasons for deletion.

'Disjointed' ,does not equate to ,'Not Notable'

Prior to Deletionist investigating, or giving reasons, have already voted to Delete , which is invalid

The Wiki guidelines quoted, WP:GNG]]. Article fails to make notability clear Does Not mean, it's not notable, just that it's 'not clear ' Which is their subjective opinion, and I've elaborated why it is independently notable ,and clarifies confusion as to the entology of a prominent place name / region of Edinburgh , which is the Fashion Capital of Scotland ,and sounds foolish ,to allow misconceived erroneous conceptions that multrees is like mulberries,instead of Moultries, the name if the person who David I King of Scotland. ,granted the land to ,Moultries Hill,Moultries Walk. Let's ask the Royal Society of Scottish Antiquarians to arbitrate ,as they would be more knowledgeable to determine notability — Preceding unsigned comment added by Odinsburgh14 (talk • contribs) 03:39, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

The article Robert Multrare has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern: Disjointed, pointless article. Purports to be about a single person and then goes on about the greater family. Would require a total rewrite to be acceptable. Objections: 1.proposed deletion = only where objection not likely Wrong I object Proposed deletion (PROD) is a way to suggest an article for uncontroversial deletion. It is a shortcut to the normal deletion review process (AfD), and a fallback for deletion proposals that do not meet the strict criteria for speedy deletion. PROD must only be used if no opposition is to be expected. The article is marked for at least seven days; if nobody objects, it is deleted by an uninvolved admin, who reviews the article and may delete it or may remove the PROD tag. The first objection kills the PROD. Even after it has been deleted, a PRODed article can be restored by anybody through an automated request for undeletion. By the same logic, PROD is one-shot only: It must not be used for articles PRODed before or discussed on AfD.

The first objection kills the PROD

I OBJECT — Preceding unsigned comment added by Odinsburgh14 (talk • contribs) 04:07, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

(PROD) is a way to suggest an article for uncontroversial deletion. It is a shortcut to the normal deletion review process (AfD), and a fallback for deletion proposals that do not meet the strict criteria for speedy deletion.

1. Did not meet Criteria for Speedy deletion ,hence PROD proposed ,which is fatal if objection, and I object , so goes by AFD review process ,which requires: Proof he is not Notable ,as it's presumed he is Notable ,as he's is recorded in the Annals Of Scottish History, so to rebut the presumption requires evidence from the Proposer for Deleton to substantiate his/her reasons why match the criteria for Deketion , as opposed to other alternatives : editing , merging etc — Preceding unsigned comment added by Odinsburgh14 (talk • contribs) 04:14, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Robert Multrare is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

We are debating Policies:

I've given reasons for inclusion There is no consensus

Proposers for deletion Have not given the specific policies they are reliant on, and linked the reasons to the policies :

Notability = not rebutted the assumption Not clear/ disjointed = not a reason for deletion, but possibly reason to edit or merge — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.213.137 (talk) 04:27, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Objection: That it's just listing his family

Incorrect as there would be hundreds of descendants

Only linking the notable people Noting associated places. : Multrees (Moultries) Walk William Moultrie Moultrie,Georgia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.214.237 (talk) 04:37, 13 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete The nominator has clearly stated his opinion that the subject of the article, Robert Multrare, does not meet the General notability guideline. The standard required by this guideline is "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". I have been searching for relevant sources and have found two which appear to be both reliable and independent. Firstly this article, and secondly this book. Both are genealogical accounts of the Moultrie family, and both note that this person received a charter of land in Edinburgh in 1365. Nothing else about this person is noted, it is not even claimed that he is an ancestor of the Moultrie family. Based on these sources it seems that Robert Multrare cannot be considered a historically significant person. There may of course be offline sources, and if so then these can be added to the article. It is more likely that a viable article can be written about the Moultrie family in general, in which Robert Multrare can be mentioned. Thanks, Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk)


 * Comment I respectfully disagree. It is a discussion, and it is controversial, as there is a difference of opinion. received a charter of land in Edinburgh in 1365. Nothing else about this person is noted, it is not even claimed that he is an ancestor of the Moultrie family. Based on these sources it seems that Robert Multrare cannot be considered a historically significant person. There may of course be offline sources, and if so then these can be added to the article. It is more likely that a viable article can be written about the Moultrie family in general, in which Robert Multrare can be mentioned. '


 * my opinion would be :
 * 1.recieving a charter, is in of itself , Notable , as it is recorded that he did recieve a charter, and that was in the 12th Century , when less records were kept, so it must have been notiable and a matter of historical record.
 * 2. Yes, Robert Multrare is the ancestor of the Moultrie family
 * 3. There are articles about some members of the Moultrie faily, such as William Moultrie whose portrait is in the White House, and is taught to schoolchildren in America regarding the American War of Independance , as Americans like to recall 'Independance Day'
 * 4.Multrare/Moultrie, is the origin of the Placename Multree ( Moultrie )
 * 5. More time may be needed to research the sources, as I havent had time to delve into it over the past week, but deletion is a last resort. Better to edit and improve it until it is acceptable. I have edited and removed some information , to make it more focused , based on the feedback and suggestions recieved . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Odinsburgh14 (talk • contribs) 17:41, 14 February 2014 (UTC)


 * "Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject should be included. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not, particularly the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.[5] If a topic does not meet these criteria but still has some verifiable facts, it might be useful to discuss it within another article.
 * Notability guidelines do not apply to content within an article


 * Shortcuts:
 * WP:NNC
 * WP:N#NCONTENT
 * WP:NLISTITEM
 * WP:NOTEWORTHY
 * The criteria applied to article creation/retention are not the same as those applied to article content. The notability guidelines do not apply to article or list content (with the exception that some lists restrict inclusion to notable items or people). Content coverage within a given article or list (i.e., whether something is noteworthy enough to be mentioned in the article or list) is governed by the principle of due weight and other content policies. For additional information about list articles, see Notability and lists and Lead and selection criteria.
 * Article content does not determine notability


 * Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article. If the subject has not been covered outside of Wikipedia, no amount of improvements to the Wikipedia content will suddenly make the subject notable. Conversely, if the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability.
 * Notability requires verifiable evidence


 * Shortcuts:
 * WP:NRV
 * WP:NRVE
 * The common theme in the notability guidelines is that there must be verifiable, objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability. The absence of citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of sources) does not indicate that the subject is not notable.
 * No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists: The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere short-term interest, nor a result of promotional activity or indiscriminate publicity, nor is the topic unsuitable for any other reason. Sources of evidence include recognized peer reviewed publications, credible and authoritative books, reputable media sources, and other reliable sources generally.
 * Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article. Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate citation. Wikipedia articles are not a final draft, and an article's subject can be notable if such sources exist, even if they have not been named yet. However, once an article's notability has been challenged, merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive, especially if time passes and actual proof does not surface. If it is likely that significant coverage in independent sources can be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate.
 * Notability is not temporary


 * Shortcuts:
 * WP:N#TEMP
 * WP:NTEMP
 * WP:NOTTEMPORARY
 * Notability is not temporary; once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage.
 * While notability itself is not temporary, from time to time, a reassessment of the evidence of notability or suitability of existing articles may be requested by any user via a deletion discussion, or new evidence may arise for articles previously deemed unsuitable. Thus, articles may be proposed for deletion or recreated months or even years after being earlier considered.
 * In particular, if reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having a biographical article on that individual. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Odinsburgh14 (talk • contribs) 17:43, 14 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I have edited it.
 * If anyone could hep, it might be more appropriate as 'Article for editing; , rather than 'article for deletion'
 * Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Odinsburgh14 (talk • contribs) 18:04, 14 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Of Note: This was evidenced ' By Royal Charter' ,so is a Royal Charter, Not Notable , according to Wikipedia Guidance?
 * I think to be granted 'by Royal Charter' means it was worthy of note.
 * Just because I dont have thelink the the actual royal Charter, doesnt mean it isnt notable , and also its Common Law Placename , by Common Practice , the placename remains the same name in the 21st Century , when the Royal Charter was granted around the 12th Century , has lasted the test of time.
 * It can be edited, as it is more a failing of my writing skills, rather than of the subject not beign noteworthy . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Odinsburgh14 (talk • contribs) 18:15, 14 February 2014 (UTC)


 * According to Wikipedia :
 * A royal charter is a formal document issued by a monarch as letters patent, granting a right or power to an individual or a body corporate. They were, and are still, used to establish significant organisations such as cities (with municipal charters) or universities. Charters should be distinguished from warrants and letters of appointment, as they have perpetual effect. Typically, a Royal Charter is produced as a high-quality work of calligraphy on vellum. The British monarchy has issued over 980 royal charters.[1] Of these about 750 remain in existence. The earliest was to the town of Tain in 1066, making it the oldest Royal Burgh in Scotland, followed by the University of Cambridge in 1231. Charters continue to be issued by the British Crown, a recent example being the Chartered Institute for the Management of Sport and Physical Activity which received its charter on 7 April 2011. Charters have been used in Europe since medieval times to create cities (that is, localities with recognised legal rights and privileges). The date that such a charter is granted is considered to be when a city is 'founded', regardless of when the locality originally began to be settled (which is often impossible to determine). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Odinsburgh14 (talk • contribs) 18:20, 14 February 2014 (UTC)


 * The date that such a charter is granted is considered to be when a city is 'founded', regardless of when the locality originally began to be settled (which is often impossible to determine).
 * So a Royal Charter, would be considered 'The Title Deeds' to that Area, from teh date is was Founded . So to be granted a Royal Charter, is the title deeds, of that Area of Edinburgh , and as teh Recipient of a Royal Charter , would make the recipient Notable , aswell as presumed to be Notable in other areas aswell , for example - Why was he granted a Royal Charter ? What did he do to Deserve being gratned a Royal Charter, which is some interesting further research , which might arise form historical research sources . It is notable , and was commented on Historical research regarding the History of Edinburgh Place names ( old and new Edinburgh(?) , will try and do further research when I have time — Preceding unsigned comment added by Odinsburgh14 (talk • contribs) 18:25, 14 February 2014 (UTC)


 * OF NOTE
 * Robert Multrare received in 1365 a Royal Charter from David II, son of the Bruce, granting him lands in the Barony of Restalrig which had been confiscated for treason from John Coitus, their late possessor.


 * So was granted the Land, which was confiscated from teh previous owner, who was guilty of Treason , so sounds like it was granted in reward for preventing Treasonous attempt against David II, so would have been a Grant awarded for Supporting the King David II, which would explain the Proximity to 'The Royal Mile' , and hence of more Historical Significance . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Odinsburgh14 (talk • contribs) 18:34, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Sir, what you show here is plain guesswork. The Banner talk 11:27, 15 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment Answering a comment by the article creator way up the page. It is the burden of the page creator and other person's supporting retention to establish and demonstrate notability of the subject. Those seeking deletion merely need impeach the argument's of the other side, but have no burden to "prove" that the subject is non notable. The burden of proof lies with those seeking to create/retain an article. Safiel (talk) 04:01, 15 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. The article as it stands doesn't indicate why he is notable. It also appears to be a word-for-word copy from here. --Deskford (talk) 11:31, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete Technically speaking, the article is not a copyvio -- it is a verbatim copy of a text from 1878, which is in the public domain. It is, however, barely sensible.  Xoloz (talk) 04:47, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * As long as we're speaking technically: the journal may have been founded in 1878, but the piece this is copied from was published in 1904. Even so, work published before 1923 is considered public domain in the US (a fact I have just learned myself). Cnilep (talk) 08:48, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. There is no clear claim of notability. It is also not clear whether the intended topic is the individual named, the various family and place names linked to, or some bigger topic related to Scottish society or culture (as the Categories suggest). It is probably best to WP:STARTOVER. Cnilep (talk) 08:48, 16 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment In response to the 5 points listed by the page creator and expanded on above: 1. Literally thousands of individuals have been granted royal charters over the centuries, even in the 14th century (not the 12th). Consider a volume such as (look in the index for list of names). Points 2-4 seem to reinforce my suggestion that a better article can be written about the Moultrie family in general, in which Robert Multrare can be mentioned (this approach is also supported by WP guidelines which have been pasted above). 5. Further research will always pay off, but as The Banner says above, you are speculating about the reasons for the grant. Unless you can turn up some evidence which the cited authors overlooked, its not likely that the article can be expanded with any information about the subject. Thanks, Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 10:47, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi I dont want to argue, but we do have a difference of opinion. I can only state my opinion, and what will be will be.

1. Unless you can turn up some evidence which the cited authors overlooked, its not likely that the article can be expanded with any information about the subject. - as its from the 14th Century, I cant produce further information at present , although i will investigate , but its more historical research , which might unlock some connections in future.

2. Points 2-4 seem to reinforce my suggestion that a better article can be written about the Moultrie family in general, in which Robert Multrare can be mentioned (this approach is also supported by WP guidelines which have been pasted above). 5. Further research will always pay off. - this is reasonable suggestion. I am looking at sources from Markinch historical society in Scotland, Clogher Historical Society in Ireland , and South Carolina HIstorical Society in US. I had thought that a stub, or editing would have sufficed for Robert Multrare, but I defer to Your Wisdom. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Odinsburgh14 (talk • contribs) 17:04, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It is not so much your opinion, it is about evidence. You have given no conclusive evidence about the notability of Robert Multrare. As you are the author of this article, it is up to you to present reliable evidence of his notability. Not the other way round. The Banner talk 18:54, 17 February 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.