Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roger Fuckebythenavele


 * 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 redirect to Fuck.  Sandstein  07:32, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Roger Fuckebythenavele

 * – ( View AfD View log )

There's zero indication that this individual is separately notable from fuck. All sources discuss this individual in relation to a contention that their name represents the oldest known usage of fuck, and it only deserves a brief mention in Fuck where it is already mentioned. Otherwise there is nothing to say about this person other than that they were declared an outlaw, which isn't enough to justify an article. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:13, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:13, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:13, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:13, 30 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep Under section 2 of WP:PERP, I would argue the nature of the crime is sufficiently unusual enough and there has been sustained coverage of him beyond the casual mention in the court rolls.  The C of E God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 15:05, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * There is no basis for characterizing his crime as "unusual" in any way - we don't even know what his crime was (Booth: "it is impossible to know what it was as he must have been referred from a lower court"). The only documented infraction is 'failure to appear when summoned to court' for whatever his original crime was, and that is incredibly mundane. If anything, WP:PERP would indicate this should be covered on another page if one exists, and one does, and he is already covered there. Agricolae (talk) 15:42, 30 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep Notability is supported by a small scholarly report on this individual, and the historical/linguistic ramifications of his case. A number of articles have been written in the popular press. This is sufficient to meet GNG the requirements, "A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." I could imagine us choosing to follow Hemiauchenia's suggestion that we place this information in Fuck, but I prefer a standalone article where any additional scholarship on this case in particular will be placed. -Darouet (talk) 15:12, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I didn't make the argument that there isn't WP:SIGCOV, there clearly is, I am just not sure there is enough to say about them to justify a standalone article. If someone wants to give the article the Lewis (baseball) treatment to get this to FA they can be my guest. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:21, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Hemiauchenia: sure. It seems clear though that the article isn't just about Roger, but is also about early usage of the word "fuck." I understand we have other places in Wikipedia where this is reviewed, but my view is that the topic is a substantial one, so having smaller articles on aspects of early usage is not only acceptable, but preferable. For that reason I think we should keep this. I don't support having standalone Wikipedia articles about zillions of random cartoon or sitcom characters, but small, well-written articles about etymology and the development of language are a plus here. -Darouet (talk) 18:50, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Articles about etymology and language development perhaps, but it is a bit fine-grained to have a separate article on each individual known early usage. Agricolae (talk) 02:47, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:GNG should determine what articles are written: if there's sufficient coverage, a topic deserves its own article. -Darouet (talk) 13:48, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * But an article should be written about what the coverage is actually about. In this case, the coverage isn't really about Roger, who remains entirely obscure, just a person who didn't show up at court and who had a funny nickname - the coverage is about an early usage of 'fuck'. That makes the early usage of 'fuck' the relevant topic, not Roger. GNG also does not make an article mandatory even when there is significant coverage, it recognized that in some cases organizational imperatives render it preferable to cover a topic on an existing page rather than hyper-fragmenting information. There is nothing to be said about Roger on a stand-alone page that can't be said (and isn't already said) in a sentence or two about Roger on Fuck. There is no real benefit to putting the small amount of known information about this individual on a separate page and then bulking it out with material about other early instances of 'fuck' that have no relevance to its subject, Roger, as has been done with this article. Including it in Fuck is both sufficient and preferable, and perfectly consistent with GNG. Agricolae (talk) 16:30, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Agricolae - I really think there's no harm in keeping this article, even if, as you correctly point out, the topic is mostly early usage of the word "fuck." That said, I realize that Fuck isn't actually that large of an article. One option is just to put this information there and if Fuck gets too large, to make a separate article about early usage of the term. -Darouet (talk) 17:28, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

A hypothetical question: If another individual were found with the same surname, with a similar lack of further biographical information, would he or she merit another article? Or be included in this one? Or excluded as off-topic? I suspect that an answer to this question might indicate what this article is really about, and thus perhaps allow people to draw a conclusion as to whether an article is merited at all. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:16, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete - this is effectively WP:1E. As per nom he has no notability independent of Fuck, and that article repeats (almost) the entire content relevant to Roger. Even the article, in referring to John le Fucker and Ric Wyndfuck, is essentially representing itself as a content fork/mirror of Fuck. The material on Wyndfuck is currently not found in Fuck, and might be added were it clear this has been discussed by philologists rather than being the the WP:OR of the editor who added it to the Roger page. That said, the article John le Fucker is similarly situated, having a very brief reference to him as a person and then the rest is philology - just based on the amount of text, these articles are both clearly about the philology of Fuck and only secondarily about the individual historical Fuckers. If there is to be a spinoff, it would be better to spin off Early usages of Fuck rather than making separate articles for each instance that are all really about Fuck. Agricolae (talk) 15:31, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete - per Agricolae. This is not grist for a standalone article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stanistani (talk • contribs) 18:12, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * AndyTheGrump, it's an insulting joke name from the early 1300s. If it turned out that this was more commonly used, perhaps the article would be renamed to "Fuckebythenavele" to describe specific mentions of this medieval insult. -Darouet (talk) 21:07, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * So it is an article about an insult applied to an individual, rather than a biography? How does this insult meet Wikipedia notability standards? I assume WP:GNG applies, and there isn't a specific notability guideline for such topics? AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:01, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Merely describing this article as a biography would be absurd, since the reason Roger has garnered academic and press attention is because of the discovery that he was insulted by a court in one of the earliest known instances of the use of the highly popular curse word, "fuck." Similarly, merely describing the article as describing once instance of an insult being hurled would also be absurd: such a description ignores the obvious interest people will have in the early use and etymology of the English language's most popular profanity. The article, as written right now, is partly about the incident, partly about the document that revealed it, and partly about early usage of "fuck." Given the coverage available, that seems appropriate. And yes, I agree that GNG, while sometimes imperfect, is the best guide. -Darouet (talk) 13:48, 1 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Fuck. Redirects are cheap. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:48, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I could go along with this, essentially a null merge. Agricolae (talk) 22:28, 31 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete per Agricolae. Ealdgyth (talk) 13:08, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Fuck. Having such an article is liable to lead to some one tagging it as a stub, but we today almost certainly know nothing of the man apart from the court case.  This appears to be from a period before all surnames became fixed; and his may have been known by another surname by his friends.  Apart from being a early occurrence of the f-word.  We would certainly regard the man as utterly NN.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:05, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Redirect, avoiding the navel, to Fuck.PrisonerB (talk) 11:51, 6 April 2021 (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.