Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jan Mendoses

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 keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 23:07, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jan Mendoses

7 hits, 2 of which are Wiki. No substantive sourcing •Jim62sch• 01:11, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep Article references four printed sources and there seems to be no reason to doubt them. Again, Ghits is not the most appropriate criterion for such a subject. Dlyons493 Talk 01:29, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Keep I've improved the sourcing in the article and feel the content is now clearly verifiable The Danish Royal Library seems to be the source for the notorious pirate statement - just follow the links in the article. Editors can decide for themselves whether the subject is sufficiently notable or not. Dlyons493 Talk 15:59, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep per above. Michael 01:51, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - some of the back story is verifiable, no reason to doubt the quoted sources, editor doesn't seem to have attempted any sort of support to the story if it is a hoax - assume good faith Yomangani^talk 01:53, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment -- this has naught to do with assuming good faith. Also, how do you know the back-story is verifiable, can you read Danish? BTW, one of the "sources" listed, a book entitled "Den danske Ishavafarer Jens Munk" returns this when when searching Danish sites: Vi fandt ingen resultater for ""Den danske Ishavafarer Jens Munk"": -- In other words, nothing. Speaking of AGF, perhaps it might be wise to assume good faith the the person who nommed it for deletion might actually have done some homework. •Jim62sch• 12:16, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment the book does exist - see [1].. So apparently does the magazine article Biografi af Jens Munk er meddelt i "Danebrog" 1882. Dlyons493 Talk 13:11, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - I wasn't doubting good faith on your part, just assuming good faith on the part the editor that created it. I assumed you were nominating on the grounds of non-notability, but since you didn't say, I was covering my bases in case you were claiming it was a hoax. Assuming everything that a nominator of an article says is true isn't a good way to go about discussing an AFD in my opinion. And, yes, I can read Danish, but you can turn up info on the existence and history of other of the characters without having to. [2]Yomangani^talk 14:19, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! No, I didn't think it was a host, but I disagree with the concept of having articles on every person ever mentioned in some book somewhere. It seems that the concept of notability has been lost. •Jim62sch• 15:15, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• CommentThe book referred to in the article is here. So Mendoses is clearly verifiable. That link also makes a claim for notability - editors need to make their own judgement on that. My view is that there are adequate multiple non-trivial sources. Dlyons493 Talk 14:34, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment -- OK, the book exists, and this proves...? It proves that the book exists is all. However, how can this meet WP:V or WP:RS if no one has access to the book? •Jim62sch• 15:15, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Follow the link - the Danish Royal Library is the source for the notorious pirate statement. Editors can form their own judgements. Dlyons493 Talk 15:22, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. We tend to think of pirates as notable because they do so well at the box-office and get women with huge busts. But sadly, this is over-romanticized. These people steal, they do so with impunity, and they still exist--and there's nothing glamorous about floating off of the coast of Somalia and terrorizing the fleets which pass by. I have no reason to doubt the sources, either, and assume good faith--however, I think I can pretty safely assume that in this instance, there's not sufficient notability, even apart from the sourcing issue, and the google hits points to that, but isn't dispositive.-Kmaguir1 02:42, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete The listed articles may prove he existed, but I can point to reliable sources to prove I exist as well. The question is, is this particular pirate notable? Based on the article, the answer is no. He was just another pirate. Resolute 05:03, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep per above. I have faith that the "notorious pirate" quote comes from one of the cited documents, which would suggest that he was somewhat well-known in his day. Google hits are low, yes, but most of the available info on the this guy probably exists offline, and in Danish. Zagalejo 07:53, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, then the Danish encyclopedia can judge him notable.-Kmaguir1 08:26, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I doubt he's that well-known in Denmark -- this is the relut for a search on him in that country: "Vi fandt ingen resultater for ""Jan Mendoses"":" "We find no results for Jan Mendoses" •Jim62sch• 12:08, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Not surprising - the admiral Jørgen Daae only get 4 hits in Danish. The Danish Web is not that extensive. But I don't think we'd be proposing deleting a Jørgen Daae article. Dlyons493 Talk 12:24, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Given that there isn't one, the point is moot. •Jim62sch• 15:11, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep — Difficult one this. This is the sort of information you expect to see in an encyclopedia but not as a separate article ( as being hanged as a pirate is hardly an endorsement of importance) - fortunately wikipedia has the space to have these separated or together. If 4 sources that can still be found 400 years after his death then he's more notable than many of the other pirates of the time. The article is better referenced than many pirate articles we have. Tag for importance and come back in a few months. Peripitus (Talk) 12:49, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete or merge with Jørgen Daae and make an article for him. Whether he was a merchant or a pirate doesn't seem that relevant. Either way he was not-notable. If for example his execution had provoked an international incident he might be notable. JoshuaZ 14:07, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Wikipedia can afford to include people who were notable in their own times but aren't currently the hottest items in the blogosphere. The name of the admiral is more commonly written Jørgen Daa (which also gets more hits). Whenever that article has been created, a merge may be contemplated, but that is no reason to delete a sourced article now. Tupsharru 17:41, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

That's interesting - it throws up a couple of hits I can't read. Are either usable? Juan de Mendoza and [3] Dlyons493 Talk

Not really, or not directly, at least. One is a historical/genealogical discussion board, the other a private webpage. But the first claims that Mendoses/Mendoza was actually a "Belgian" (Flemish, I suppose) called Mandaus, and gives reference to a report by Daa in a source called Norske Riksregistranter, which appears at least partly to be printed. The other is about the arctic explorer Jens Munk and is probably based on the type of printed sources already in the article here. Searching for Mendoses in Google books gets three hits, one of which is Danish Arctic Expeditions, 1605 to 1620: In Two Books (by several authors). I think there is enough to work from here for anyone who is interested and has a reading knowledge of Danish. Tupsharru 18:14, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: I (PCU123456789) have cleaned up the article to make it more comprehensible. Possibly merge it into a related article, e.g. Thomas Tucker. 68.111.72.167 20:47, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Seems to be low importance but still notable. Flying Jazz 22:57, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep per Peripitus. KillerChihuahua^?!? 01:29, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep or more preferably merge to Jørgen Daa whenever it is created. bbx 22:09, 11 September 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.