Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexander Stanhope St. George

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. Evaluation is divided evenly (even on a numerical count) between deleting and keeping or keeping in some form such as merging/redirecting/rewriting. The debate has not been made easy by the fact that this is a current event, and the unusual nature of a "hoax", which has achieved international press mention and can be seen instead as a "fiction". Obviously the article in its initial state was not valid, but that has also changed since the AfD began. There is a merge proposal in place on the article, and that may be the best way to go for now to resolve the issue. Ty 00:26, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Alexander Stanhope St. George

Alexander Stanhope St. George (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Alleged inventor of a telectroscope. The two links which do work do little to confirm and the link to a book by Likopoulos, A. does not work, which is strange given that the article was written by A Likopoulos. An earlier version of this article was deleted as an hoax. One of its contributors was Paulstgeorge who is almost certainly the Paul St George in this blog]. In this posting he has the cheek to pretend that the Wikipedia article which he and A Likopoulos created validates his hoax. -- RHaworth (Talk

All I can find is this NYTimes article; [1] Nk.sheridan   Talk 01:04, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. The aforementioned Times link states explicetly that this is a hoax. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:12, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I opened an ANI thread about this issue. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:26, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. The article is full of lies, per the New York Times, and the real St. George simply is not notable. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:33, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - plenty of substantive mentions in reliable sources[2] establish motability. St. George's telectroscope is a notable thing, and a well-covered example was just installed as an art project. So it is clearly not a hoax article. The question is whether the artist's great grandfather, and his claimed invention, are fictitious or apocryphal. They seem to be. Fictitious and hoax are two different things. Assuming the Times is right (we cannot take this for granted), Alexander Stanhope St. George is a fictionalized version of the artist's grandfather, Alexander St. George, a tailor. Not all famous apocryphal ancestors of famous creative people are notable. Some are -- for example, see Kunta Kinte. A S St. G is not as notable as Kunta Kinte to be sure, but he does have lots of significant mentions in reliable independent secondary sources. If we do keep it, all we have to do is rephrase the article in objective terms rather than in-world terms. Wikidemo (talk) 01:36, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
  • So why are you voting to !keep, because the art project is real? The article is not about the art project, it's about a person, which is clearly a hoax (or however you want to define it).--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:55, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Because it is a notable apocryphal character, like Kunta Kinte or all the people on our List of fictitious people. Wikidemo (talk) 08:30, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
See comments below: Unlike Kunta Kinte, he has no notability as a fictitious person. The converage that he has recieved has been coverage as a real person. Therefore, making an article about his fictitiousness is Original Research. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 09:07, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Not quite OR but I see your point. I agree that a merge and redirect (plus refactoring it to cover it as a hoax) is the most encyclopedic way to handle the material until and unless he starts taking on a notable life of his own, so to speak. Wikidemo (talk) 18:03, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete certainly as fact: [3] says it is an art hoax and subject of the article is fictional, and that fact that it appears here doesn't give me much confidence. If it's to be kept as fact, much more reliable sources are necessary; however, as a hoax, it is well-documented enough to be an article as such. --Rodhullandemu 01:45, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Opinion as it is written the article is either a hoax attempting to present a fictional story (and establish hoax) as reality or an article on such a story that does not establish its fictional status. In practise there is no difference apart from the intent. If an article is created on the related work/installation which has received a substantial amount of news coverage I think that it would be appropriate to merge in the information in this article in some form - with sufficient context provided from reliable sources to establish its fictional/real world hoax status. As a real life hoax or fictitious happening I do not think the subject meets the inclusion criteria but given the correct context I think some of the content might be appropriate elsewhere. Guest9999 (talk) 01:56, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. No reference on google books. Name is a combination of Alexander (Graham Bell)- Stanhope (inventor)- (Paul) St George. Other Victorian/Edwardian inventors such as Sir Oliver Lodge show up immediately on google books. A poorly written, anachronistic hoax. Mathsci (talk) 02:15, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep and rewrite as a hoax. given the story in the NYT, it is sufficient notability. The article there is a sufficiently RS. (Essentially, I agree with Guest--the present article is unsupportable, but another one is possible. Someone should just rewrite it. I dont have the energy right now, unfortunately. DGG (talk) 03:27, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
  • DGG: I hope you regain your energy, but use it for a better purpose. One New York Times article, that mentiones this hoax in passing, doesn't make it a notable hoax. Although plenty of reliable sources fell for the hoax, the story about the hoax hasn't recieved substantial coverage. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:37, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
  • What, you're kidding, right? Do you propose that any time the NYT mentions something in an article, it is worth its own article here? The Evil Spartan (talk) 04:23, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
...plus the Observer, and the Times of London, and the New York Post, and The Scotsman, plus a couple dozen other news sources.[4] Wikidemo (talk) 08:35, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Wikimodo: The problem is that you wish to make an article about the apocryphal character - Alexander Stanhope St. George. There's no substantial coverage about the apocryphal character Alexander Stanhope St. George. The New York Times only mentions this apocryphal character in passsing. The links that you provide discuss him as a real person, which has now been established as a hoax. So it seems that you are stuck. If you want an article about the real person, you have a hoax. If you want an article about the apocryphal character, you don't have substantial coverage about the apocryphal character. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 08:51, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, true. The character is just part of the performance - he hasn't taken on much significance on his own.Wikidemo (talk) 00:28, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Someone blanked the article - an unhelpful act during its AFD - and so I am rewriting it from the many sources. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:01, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I left a note to that effect on the person's talk page. It turns out it is a long-time administrator who deleted the article before and who one would expect to follow AfD procedures a little better than that. I would have simply reverted. At any rate I've made some modifications to make more clear that it is a fictitious / fabricated character. It looks like the result will be a redirect and merge, something one can do whatever the outcome here. All the same I would download and save a copy of the article in its most complete form just in case. Wikidemo (talk) 09:29, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
I blanked a version that was universally agreed here to be a blatant hoax article, being actively used for PR purposes for the benefit of the article creator. We should WP:DENY hoaxers the benefit of such free PR during the course of an AfD. Now, if you want to write an article about "Alexander Stanhope St. George" as a "fictional character", I think that is a strange idea, but it is not against policy to do so until the AfD is ended. When I blanked the version, there was no other previous version that was not a blatant hoax article, so there was nothing else to "revert" to.--Pharos (talk) 17:03, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Speedy is one possible outcome to an AfD, and clearly not going to happen. Your arguments are legitimate, and other people's arguments are legitimate too. Taking matters into your own hands during an AfD to impose an outcome that doesn't seem to be getting consensus contentious is indeed a contentious. It undermines AfD process. I think it's pretty clear at this point that the article will or should be deleted, that this does not preclude from adding the material in sourced, appropriate form to the article about the artist or the art installation. There also doesn't seem to be enough support to warrant the unusual step of salting a redirect, so there is nothing to prevent that. That does not reward anyone for vandalism, it restores things to how they should be. If a person is misbehaving here that is a separate matter and he can be blocked, banned, etc. Or, how about simply asking him not to do it again and seeing if he will agree? Wikidemo (talk) 17:37, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - don't like DGG's suggestion. This does not pass sniff test for own article. The Evil Spartan (talk) 04:23, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete When one of the supporting sources says "I believe in the Telectroscope" I start to think it's more likely a faux religion than a science. In my opinion no notability as a hoax whatsoever. Orderinchaos 05:18, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Merge and redirect. Reporting from London here.;-) The device, the artist Paul St. George, and his wacky story about his grandfather discovering the beginnings of the tunnel on some island in the middle of the Atlantic "possibly dug to entomb French prisoners of war, or as routes for escaping slaves" have received enormous coverage, including the BBC television news, and in the mainstream press e.g.[5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10]. It's obviously gone all over the world too. [11]. The hoax (and the Wikipedia article) is part of the 'performance'. Incidentally, The Guardian reviews the "telectroscope" in the Theatre section. The hoax (original press release came out on April 1st) is obviously part of the publicity too. That said, better to write an article on Paul St. George (who really is notable), incorporate the material on the hoax into it, and redirect Alexander Stanhope St. George to his "grandson's" article. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 07:16, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
On second thought, re-writing and merging the information about the installation and the fanciful Alexander Stanhope St. George with Telectroscope and redirecting his article is probably the way to go. I agree with Colonel Warden re the notability (and fabness) of the project. Yesterday BBC Television News was describing it as a rival to The London Eye. If it weren't pouring down with rain today, I'd go photograph it for the Telectroscope article. Voceditenore (talk) 08:49, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
The weather forecasters correctly predicted this and so I anticipated you and have uploaded photos already. :) Colonel Warden (talk) 10:06, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
I went to take my pix during that lull in the rain on Sunday afternoon - no sun tho' so yours are better...Zir (talk) 12:20, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm changing back to delete with no redirect because there really isn't much to merge from this article, apart from the chap's name which is now mentioned in passing in the telectroscope article. This invented 'grandfather' of Paul St. George is not really notable as a hoax per se and it's currently impossible to reliably and definitively reference the contention that it's a hoax, although we all know it is. All the press articles are of the "nudge, nudge, wink, wink" variety and analyzing the style of the drawings etc. would be original research. And the more I think about it, the more I agree with the views expressed by Pharos, JohnCD, and others that deliberately publishing a hoax article to Wikipedia as part of a well-planned and calculated publicity campaign should not be be rewarded. Voceditenore (talk) 11:49, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep/merge I went to take a look at NY through the telectroscope yesterday and it is certainly real and notable. This article seems to describe a notable semi-fictional character who plays a significant part in this fine piece of installation art. At the very least, the name should be kept as a redirect to another article as it is a useful search term and so deletion is inappropriate. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:01, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete. Non-notable hoax. MilkFloat 08:28, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete. This article is a hoax by an author with a COI trying to put false information ("recognized in many parts of the world as the inventor of the only Telectroscope that would have worked") into Wikipedia as part of a larger hoax for an "art" project. It should go, preferably speedy G3. Whether the larger "art" hoax is worth an article by someone without a COI is another question. In my opinion it is too silly - transatlantic tunnels, forsooth! - but if we do, I think Voceditenore's suggestion is best. JohnCD (talk) 08:42, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Telectroscope, we should keep the article history around in order to cite it as a notable hoax entry, like this link from the present Lustfaust. <eleland/talkedits> 09:57, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Telectroscope, which, silly or not, is certainly a notable piece of installation art, having received international coverage. And mention Paul St. George's backstory about his grandfather there per Voceditenore; it's a nice tale, but nearly all the coverage seems to treat his alleged grandfather as a footnote in the story of the artwork. However, as a plausible search term it should certainly redirect somewhere. Iain99Balderdash and piffle 10:25, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment Colonel Warden has now added information about the Telectroscope art installation, photos, and references to the Telectroscope article. I agree that the "Alexander Stanhope St. George" is a useful search term, hence a re-direct, and as User:Eleland points out the article's history will remain available in terms of documenting the hoax which is an integral part of the installation/performance. However, redirecting to Telespectroscope isn't an option because that's not what Paul St. George's installation is called. Voceditenore (talk) 10:31, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
      • I fixed my typo there, just seconds before you clicked "edit this page," no doubt ;-) <eleland/talkedits> 10:41, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Speedy Keep If anything's a deletable hoax, it's this Afd. Obviously notable and encyclopedic article (send this AfD to the trashbin). --Firefly322 (talk) 14:03, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment We have to be clear that the article under discussion here (Alexander Stanhope St. George) is almost undoubtedly a hoax, concocted by the artist, Paul St. George as part of the London/New York art installation, The Telectroscope. Paul St. George is real, as is the art installation. The question is what do we do with this article. At this point, it's quite hard to find published sources which unequivocally state that it's a hoax, although it's pretty strongly implied in this article in The Scotsman[12] and this one in The Times[13]. If you look at the drawings allegedly by Alexander Stanhope St. George and allegedly found in St. George family's attic, it's pretty obvious they're faked. See [14]. But for Wikipedia to say that based on the style of the drawings, which although charming, is not Victorian, would be original research. So do we keep this as a separate article and state that's probably a hoax or re-direct it to the telectroscope article? Voceditenore (talk) 14:37, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - Voceditenore asks, what do we do with this article. We delete it, maybe leaving a redirect, because (1) it makes claims - "Alexander Stanhope St George is most famous for creating the Telectroscope... Alexander Stanhope St George is widely recognized in many parts of the world as the inventor of the only Telectroscope that would have worked." - which are not backed up by any reliable source, and because (2) it seems clear that it was created as part of the larger hoax or "art installation", and we should resist Wikipedia being used like that. The article about the larger hoax could mention that, to support it, a hoax WP article was created, but was promptly detected. JohnCD (talk) 19:53, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Comment. This sketch from the same website is also odd in many ways. According to the publicity for this Installation art, the fictitious ASSG visited New York in 1884, before the Statue of Liberty had been assembled (1886) and while the 15 star American Flag was still in use. The style of the drawing seems to be a cross between Thomas Rowlandson and Edward Ardizzone. Mathsci (talk) 15:22, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Redirect and merge, merge any useful and verifiable content from this hoax article to the article on the notable art installation telectroscope and then redirect Alexander Stanhope St. George to that article. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:03, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Redirect and merge as per all the above. The 'scope is real and should have an article; this fellow is a hoax. --Haemo (talk) 23:51, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Redirect - Redirect to the telectroscope article. The hoax article could be mentioned in said article. It should not be salted. See also WP:ANI#Wikipedia hoax in the New York Times Nk.sheridan   Talk 00:36, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. It is not vital for us to have an article on every hard-to-document thing in the world. This article, if it is to be kept, will need to be an article about the hoax. Yet there is not much reliable material from which it can be written. Deleting is a safer option, and it does not leave any serious hole in our encyclopedic coverage, because the topic itself is very minor. 01:02, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete as a hoax and to deter others for using Wikipedia for self advertising. AniMate 02:08, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete as hoax; this should not be redirected or merged; why should we reward the creation of hoax articles? -- The Anome (talk) 07:27, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete. I have no idea why this wasn't speedy-deleted again like I speedied Alexander Stanhope St George (without the period) immediately after reading the New York Times article. This is just a blatant PR hoax. The most obscure one-time character on a cartoon show from 1976 you've never heard of has ten times the notability of "Alexander Stanhope St George" as a fictional character, and I don't see how any merge would be warranted.--Pharos (talk) 07:52, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep... at least for the duration of the telectroscope installation. They say that art should stimulate debate - well it's done so on this page...Zir (talk) 12:20, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
    • So this blatant PR hoax should be kept up just as long as the free PR is valuable to the vandalizer? Excuse me if I think this is another reason to speedy-delete.--Pharos (talk) 17:10, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
      • I have to say that the argument that we should keep a hoax article to "stimulate debate" is one of the strangest comments I've ever seen at an AfD discussion! :) Tim Vickers (talk) 17:33, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
  • ';comment' Notable hoaxes are notable, even if done originally as a PR trick, and one that gets a major NYT article, is notable enough. DGG (talk) 23:00, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
    • DGG, this is certainly not a notable hoax. It's not even a hoax, except on Wikpedia. It's a notable art installation, with a fanciful back story (which is fairly common for this sort if thing) which has not been put forward as a serious claim in any way by the artist. What happened is just this: The assistant who runs the artist's blog made a minor prank by putting a hoax article on Wikipedia (which happened to be mentioned in a throwaway line in the New York Times article on the notable art installation). Please look over that NYT article again in context, and say whether you still believe this is as a "notable hoax".--Pharos (talk) 23:48, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Telectroscope. This is an article about a fictional character, whose only notability is as part of the backstory of a recent art installation; he has no notability of his own, and fails WP:FICT; therefore this article should be redirected to the one on the installation and any useful information merged there. Terraxos (talk) 16:58, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge any viable information to the Paul St George, Telectroscope, or whichever appropriate page. I posted a Merge Proposal on the Paul St George and the Alexander Stanhope St George pages. There is a Merge Proposal discussion located here.Darthjarek (talk) 10:21, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Telectroscope. Don't even bother looking for something to merge over. - BanyanTree 04:00, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per brewcrewer's rationale in the discussions near the top of this AFD. The coverage this topic recieved is about the person as a real person, which was revealed to be a hoax. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 03:25, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Rewrite I agree with DGG that the best approach is rewrite the article to make clear the character is a fictional character. Failing that it should be redirected to telectroscope. Geo Swan (talk) 22:26, 30 May 2008 (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.