Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Harbottle

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 of the debate was Speedy Delete. --JoanneB 11:35, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] George Harbottle

[edit] Original writer of the article

I give up - you are too good for me.

I was the original writer of the article. It was all a hoax. Congratulations to the nerds that live and breathe on Wikipedia who solved the 'crime'; you have done well young padawans. However, there was some truth in the article - very disjointed, warped truth, but truth nonetheless. It took you months to figure it out though it was a shamble though!

I claim responsibility for the false signatures and the citied texts that were just picked at random so that you would have to look them up at a library. I can guarantee that I won't be wasting my time writing bogus articles again. I am constantly using Wikipedia for study so it would be appreciated if my IP wasn't blocked for this harmless joke, and I can quote users who claimed that debunking this was 'fun'.

Top notch work to the fellow who picked up on the Notlob/Bolton comparison.

                                                          Lawrence Wallace, 10:44 PM, 14/5/06

There is evidence that the claim to having invented jeweled watches may be a hoax, without this claim the man is not notable. Owning a storefront is not notable. Inventing jeweled watches is. However, after a bit of Googling, I'm not sure if this isn't a hoax. There is nothing on Google to suggest that George Harbottle invented jeweled watches except for this Wikipedia article. The man himself appears to be have been real. However, there is no mention on that website of a son, George Jr. Further evidence... after perusing the article history, the claim that George Harbottle invented jeweled watches didn't get added until AFTER Fang Ai Li raised the question of notability. It's very possible that someone added it in order to deflect her challenge.--Richard 08:21, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

This AfD was 'orphaned', so listing now. --JoanneB 05:42, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete I've 'searched inside' on Amazon in some books about watches and one of the books that was mentioned as a source, but no mention of his name. I share Richard's belief that this is a hoax. --JoanneB 05:42, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete. 752 Google hits seem to be too low to be notable.--Jusjih 08:20, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

*Keep unless hoax demonstrated; Vote changed to delete below This may or may not be a hoax. There's certainly some specific detail (address etc) in the article, and three sources. It's certainly possible to prove/disprove the validity of the sources, at the least. I don't think this should be deleted without the three sources being checked, and I certainly appreciate JoanneB's efforts in checking one of them (knowing which one may assist other editors). To quote the article:

"(Born) (1810-1877) ... he was unable to patent his discovery and was henceforth never officially recognised for the huge contribution he made to the watch industry ..." 752 google hits under these conditions seems pretty notable to me (without checking the content therein), I must say. The article specifically makes the point that his contributions have been passed over and he does not have the general notability he deserves, so it's a bit disingenious to expect Google to be the arbiter of notability. NN not proven to my satisfaction. Of course, if it's a hoax, disregard my ramblings. Colonel Tom 11:01, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep unless hoax demonstrated. (Changed vote below) First of all, as Tom says, the number of google hits should always be placed in context. For someone living today, 752 may not be a lot; for a man who died 129 years ago it's prima facie evidence of notability. Secondly, the man certainly was real; there's even a mugshot of his pickpocketing son. So it looks like this is a serious article; we cannot conclude it's a hoax unless all three sources have been checked... David Sneek 13:00, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment; I've left a message at the creator's talk page: User_talk:210.49.235.218. Hopefully, they can assist with verification. I must say, checking the article's progress, I'm inclined to discount this being a hoax, but I'm prepared to be proved wrong. Colonel Tom 13:39, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Pocket-picking, please. Or do we talk of picknosing children? ;-) Just zis Guy you know? 15:21, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Now, Now! Me mum was a pickpocketing nosepicker, and me daughter, while an accomplished nosepicker, is yet to learn the skills of pickpocketing. A pickpocket exercising their skills is engaged in pickpocketing. Just ask me mum if you don't believe me, JzG, but be sure to check your pickedpockets afterwards. Colonel Tom 12:39, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

• Some comments:

1. The 752 (or in my latest search, 768) google hits are a bad indication of this person's notability. They consist of only 173 unique results. Even this would be alright, considering the context indeed, but please don't take that as 'prima fecie evidence': I've checked out the first 100 of those unique hits, and just 3 or so are about this George Harbottle, and the only information (other than the link to his grave) they give is that he once sold this spoon.
2. The fact that his grave is on the website David Sneek mentioned, proving that he exists, does not make him notable enough in itself: the question is, did he actually do the stuff he did according to the article (and that would make him notable), which we have not been able to establish any proof for so far.
3. One of the books that is offered as a 'source', A New England? : Peace and War 1886-1918 is on Amazon here with a 'search inside' function. The name 'Harbottle', however, yields no results. The other books that are listed as references sadly don't offer this.
4. Take a look at the article's talk page, especially at it's history. The discussion that is going on on the talk page, with several contributions from different people stating how notable he is, are mostly from the same (and one very similar) IP address. --JoanneB 14:09, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• • • The comment from that anonymous IP address was signed User: Wally, so I asked him to join the discussion. David Sneek 15:06, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep for now, I guess, unless we can show it's a hoax, which [1] andm maybe [2] indicate maybe not. Note that there seem to be a number of George Harbottles. Just zis Guy you know? 15:21, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • No one is saying the guy may or may not have existed: I believe he did. That's not what makes this article a hoax. The question is, did he invent the jeweled watches? If we are not sure about that, there's a strong case to be made that this guy did exist, but was not notable. --JoanneB 15:59, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete This page says jewels were used in watches from 1704. Britannica confirms The first patent covering the application of jewels in watches was taken out in 1704 Also persuaded by JoanneB's and Richard's comments and history of IPs playing around with this article. --HJMG 20:00, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment — some of the suspect changes were defended on the talk page under my name. The person who added it was an anon user, the same that made many of the changes that were in question on the page. That person is also not me; I have made edits on my IP before (4.64.4.16) but these were not reflected on its history. It seems, then, that someone borrowed my name to make changes. I do not know why, but I felt that it might help to know at the very least that whoever is making some of the changes to this page has been engaged in some... interesting tactics. Wally 20:25, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment — I'm starting to get convinced that Joanne and Richard are right. The information that would make Mr. Harbottle notable comes from the anonymous user at the University of Queensland ( [3] [4]) who seems to be an unreliable source. David Sneek 22:26, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep There seems to be some evidence that this is a hoax, but a lot of evidence pointing to it not being a hoax. Until proved one, I vote Keep --Metromoxie 01:53, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
  • You have every right to your vote, but I'm not exactly sure what you mean by 'a lot of evidence pointing to it not being a hoax'? Of all the evidence presented above, I only see things proving the man existed, and a lot of strong proof against the rest of the article.--JoanneB 07:19, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. It is the responsibility of those wanting the article included to demonstrate that it is not a hoax, not the other way around. Stifle (talk) 15:35, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment Stifle, this would certainly be the case if there were no sources given in the article. However, three books are cited as sources. This article has asserted notability and provided sources, as required. It is the responsibility of those doubting the veracity of those sources to demonstrate that it is a hoax, not the other way around. Colonel Tom 00:30, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment The above comment is problematic. (I was going to same something a bit more acerbic but my co-Esperanzan is watching so I guess I had best tone down the rhetoric.)

To illustrate, if I wrote "George Bush was arrested for driving in the nude while high on pot during his senior year at Yale" and provided the source as "Yale Daily News March 17, 1972", would you accept that as a reliable source? Why or why not? Most of us don't have access to the archives of the Yale Daily News although I'd bet there is are Wikipedians who are on the staff of the Yalie Daily. To prove or disprove the statement about George Bush, it's likely one of them would hunt this charge down.

Whose responsibility would it be to prove the credibility of the statement? What if I provided as a source "Notable Alumni of Yale" (assuming such a book existed) but didn't provide a page number?. Whose responsibility would it be to prove or disprove the credibility of my statement?

However, what if the statement was made about George Johnson, Class of 1974? (I made up the name and graduation year.) Then what? How would you prove or disprove the charge without the help of someone who has access to the Yalie Daily?

Getting back to the article in question, I would assert that the level of sourcing is insufficient especially in light of the information that use of jewels in watches predated the birth of the person in question.

Now, in truth, this is an inherent problem with Wikipedia. The article in question doesn't cite page number so, even if I had a copy of each of the three sources, it would be an inordinately tedious task to verify that there was not a page somewhere in the three volumes that supported the claims in the article. Moreover, none of the cited sources are the kind that one could find in the typical public library so the bar for debunking the hoax is set unrealistically high. If this article is a hoax, the hoaxsters have framed the hoax in such a way that it is very difficult to debunk. If the hoaxsters are reading all this, they must be having a grand old time laughing at us and the time and effort they have made us waste attempting to debunk the hoax. --Richard 02:27, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - I've checked the Gotham book and there's no mention of Harbottle.
  

The story so far. . . . . The article is created with facts matching a cemetery website, citing two books, one with no apparent ref to any Harbottle. A week later a son is added with a story about his deportation to England and a crime at Notlob. (If this is the man then he would have been 76 at the time.) A few months on and someone questions GH's notability. Notlob is changed to Bolton, and a claim that GH invented jewel gears in watches is added, even though this invention had existed for more than 100 years before his birth. The same editor removes the notability query tag. A week later and the deportation story is changed. Next a claim about George/georging/criminal slang is added (no support in OED). Another book is added to the references, again with no mention of Harbottle. During this later stage of editing, fake signatures supporting the claim to notability are added to the talk page . . . . . --HJMG 08:47, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - Chuckle... I think we should create a new tag Template:Gift because I now see this article as such. This hoax has been nicely crafted so that the research required to debunk it can be seen as fun in a perverse sort of way. For example, has anybody noticed that "Notlob" is "Bolton" spelled backwards? It's almost as if we had an eccentric uncle laying out a puzzle for us to solve. Do we get a treat when we're done?

Yes, yes, I know it's really not the sort of thing we want happening in Wikipedia. Not that we can condone or encourage this kind of thing and we must, of course, delete the little beastie now but, at least, the hoaxsters have had their fun and hopefully so have we. Take it in stride, we've been had. Happy editing to you all. --Richard 08:58, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete It's been a fascinating hoax, but I don't think we need to bother checking more sources. As HJMG's links show, Mr. H. did not invent jeweled watches. Apart from that, there is no claim to notability. David Sneek 10:12, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete And I call myself a Monty Python fan (re Bolton/Notlob). I had looked through the page changes, but not thoroughly enough, obviously. My thanks to all concerned for the effort taken in researching this. While I'm not in _complete_ agreement with your comments re onus of proof re verifiability, Richard, you've given me food for thought. I can see that I've contributed to dragging this hoax out, and for that I apologise. Hopefully, I'll learn from this. And yes, it was fun; I was fooled. If notability can be comprehensively shown in future (which looks beyond probability at the moment), then recreate. Colonel Tom 11:30, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as an amusiing hoax. --Alf ^melmac 12:36, 14 May 2006 (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.