Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tom King (highwayman)


 * 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. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 04:19, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Tom King (highwayman)

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Tom King was a fictional construct of William Harrison Ainsworth in his novel Rookwood (novel) and appears to have been based on Matthew King, a real-life colleague of 18th-century highwayman Dick Turpin.

The article appears to be mostly original research. It is riddled with errors, such as "Turpin fled to York where he was later arrested for sheep stealing", and "Turpin accidently shot King with his pistol" (this latter sentence is based on an eye-witness statement that appears embellished).

I suggest that the article be deleted, and a redirect be placed to Dick Turpin. Parrot of Doom 15:51, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - per nom. Not sure about the redirect though, because of the Matthew/Tom confusion. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:58, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge: with Dick Turpin. Plenty of references for Tom King, but you'll be hard pressed to find any which do not also reference Mr. Turpin as their main focus. GreyWyvern (talk) 17:23, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * There is nothing to merge. The article contains nothing that isn't already mentioned in Dick Turpin, and anything that isn't is either written as fact from fictional sources, or made-up rubbish. Parrot of Doom 17:55, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - Tom King is, as far as I am aware, a real historical character. At least, the Encyclopaedia Britannica seems to think so! Deb (talk) 18:43, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The encyclopaedia Brittanica is incorrect. Dick Turpin only ever consorted with a Tom King in Ainsworth's book.  His real-life accomplice was Matthew King.  Tom King was fictionalised in Rookwood, but also later in Tom King, the Hero Highwayman, or, Stand and Deliver, and Tom King the Dashing Highwayman (Sharpe p174).  Both Sharpe and Barlow, both experts on Dick Turpin, state explicitly that Tom King never existed.  In every other source, not a single one I have found gives its sources for the existence of Tom King. Parrot of Doom 18:55, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Who are Sharpe and Barlow? Tom King was the name by which Matthew King was better known - see . Deb (talk) 23:11, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Matthew King has never been known as Tom King. Tom King is a fictional character based on Matthew King.  People who identify the latter as the former, are simply incorrect, as I have repeatedly pointed out. Parrot of Doom 23:38, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The National Archives say that Tom King was the nickname of Matthew King, as do other sources. Where is your evidence that he has not?  If you wish to move the article to Matthew King (highwayman), I have no objections.  Deb (talk) 17:59, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The National Archives offers no sources for its claims, and that page would very likely have been written by a non-expert on the subject, as a quick web summation of the document advertised. Neither, for that matter, does the Encyclopaedia Britannica offer sources, which cannot even get Turpin's baptism date correct.  I have two very sound sources to verify my claims.  One, Sharpe (2005), which offers a fairly significant list of historical documents and published works, and the other, from the ODNB, which is written by Derek Barlow, author of a well-respected book on Turpin that I haven't yet managed to find an affordable copy of.  If you can find a single mention anywhere of a Tom King working with Richard Turpin, before Ainsworth's Rookwood was published, then I'll happily apologise.  You won't though.
 * I don't even know why I'm bothering to argue. The above article offers no reliable sources, and everything I have said is demonstrably correct.  If you want to ignore the plain truth staring you in your face, well that isn't my problem.  As for a move, if that happened then this article would become a two-line stub. Parrot of Doom 18:16, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I get the picture. Your experts (one of whom you admit you haven't even read anything by) are the only real experts.  Any source I quote must therefore be wrong.  That's not how wikipedia works. If you will give me an explicit citation or any evidence at all that Matthew King was not commonly known as "Tom", I'll be glad to reconsider my opinion.  So far, all we have is your word for it. Deb (talk) 18:43, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * ODNB, Sharpe, James (2005), The Myth of the English Highwayman, Profile Books ltd, ISBN 1861974183 p. 132, pp. 154-155, p. 174. By the way, where did I ever say that I hadn't read anything about Dick Turpin by Derek Barlow? Parrot of Doom 19:21, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It would be useful if you could quote the relevant paragraph to save me having to go and order it from a library, since you have it to hand. Deb (talk) 12:49, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You can consider all of my above postings as a citation. It would also be useful if you would assume good faith.  I'm not jumping through any more hoops, I have too many other things to work on. Parrot of Doom 14:43, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Same here. If you quote an obscure work from a little-known "expert" as the only primary source for your statements, you can expect to be questioned on it. Deb (talk) 20:01, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't quote Sharpe as the only primary source for the confusion between Matthew King and Tom King though, did I? Or do you want me to copy the ODNB entry for Tom King also?  Because I won't be doing that either. Parrot of Doom 20:07, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Since you wouldn't/couldn't quote, I looked further and found this review of Sharpe's book. It would seem to cast some doubt on his status as an expert. Deb (talk) 15:59, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * No, the article casts some doubt on his thoroughness by highlighting errors he made in modern history. It finds no fault in his research of Turpin's actual life.  A minor problem I've already noted here.  Now you can go and find something to pick over regarding Barlow's 1973 book, or his ODNB entry on Dick Turpin, while defending a badly-written poorly-sourced article full of nonsense with links to the frankly awful Encyclopaedia Britannica. Parrot of Doom 16:05, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You're just digging yourself in deeper. You won't cite any primary sources, you won't quote from the books you've read which you know are not generally accessible.  What conclusion do you expect others to come to? Deb (talk) 18:50, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * No doubt once I've copied the several paragraphs of text, you'll accuse me of making it up, and will demand scans, just as you tried (and failed) to question the reliability of the Sharpe book. To hell with that.  All the information you need I have already provided, in the form of an ODNB biography of Dick Turpin, and a good-quality source which I've provided page numbers for.  Its up to you if you want to verify them or not, because I won't do it for you.  Believe me, or don't believe me, I no longer give a shit.  I can't be arsed arguing with people who cast aspersions on my honesty, and who try and defend poorly-referenced articles such as the one under discussion. Parrot of Doom 19:16, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Deb, in your zeal to have this article kept, I think you have forgotten than Tom King's relation to Dick Turpin is specifically noted as an invalid criteria for an individual's notability. Unless you can show that Tom King has received significant third-party coverage apart from his supposed relationship with Dick Turpin, the WP notability guidelines on this situation are clear. Grey Wyvern ⚒  19:43, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't doubt you'll find enough in the revised article to justify keeping it. And as yet, there is no consensus to delete. Deb (talk) 21:49, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Deb, your Britannica reference is prefaced by a note indicating the content was automatically extracted from their main article about Dick Turpin as a search result. eg. association with Turpin (in Dick Turpin (English criminal)). Britannica does not have a separate article about Tom King. GreyWyvern (talk) 19:10, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, so it's their main article on Dick Turpin that says Tom King was a real person, then. Deb (talk) 22:59, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I am a real person too. Why don't I get my own Wikipedia page? :) The issue here is notability, and besides the tenuous like to Dick Turpin, Tom King wasn't notable.  I think, if anything, we should follow Britannica's example on this and mention Tom on the Dick Turpin page, instead of giving Tom his own article. Grey Wyvern ⚒  18:44, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Tom King is already mentioned on Dick Turpin. Parrot of Doom 19:21, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * facepalm: I mean that we should follow their example and not have a separate article for Tom King.  I know he is already mentioned on Dick Turpin's page :) Grey Wyvern ⚒  20:57, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I see what you mean now. I completely agree, but my opposition to the article in question is that it makes fiction appear as fact.  Even were we to have an article on Matthew King, it would be a stub which almost certainly wouldn't be expanded. Parrot of Doom 22:13, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget  22:04, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Weak keep The current article seems to be factually correct  correct, and is supported by the DNB entry for Turpin, with the relevant paragraph reading "Turpin then took up with Matthew King (then, and since, erroneously identified as Tom King), whom he may have known already, and stole a racehorse called Whitestockings, which was soon traced to a stable behind the Red Lion in Whitechapel. In the ensuing ambush on 2 May, Turpin again escaped, but Matthew King was shot and later died of his wounds." [http/www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/27892] . BTW,  there are two Tom King's in ODNB with full articles, and   neither is him: King, Thomas (1835–1888),  pugilist, who has a Wikipedia article at Thomas King (boxer), and King, Thomas (1730–1805), actor and theatre manager, who does not have a Wikipedia article. Anyone who wants the text of that article to work from, email me, as he is unquestionably notable. The present article   discusses the fictional character, who is notable as such,  the real person corresponding to him, and the misnomer. (I have not found whether or not there was a real Tom King as a highwayman.)  The solution would be to  make the article about the fictional character only, explaining the origin of the name.    DGG ( talk ) 05:54, 14 November 2009 (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.