Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Main Page

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. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 21:42, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

William Main Page

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I needed to use double quotes in the search to find much of importance. Almost everything I found is a regurgitation of the article. I could find a single online reliable source from Google Books and it was too insignificant to matter. I could also find this page from the talk page, but it is a biography of another person and is not significant either. The sources given are an obituary (which does not confer notability) and an encyclopedia, which is probably not a significant source. I also found page 120 of "The British Esperantist" on Google Books which mentions him, but does not describe him. Capsulecap ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:33, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Language. Capsulecap ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:33, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:08, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak keep This is a complicated one. It's always difficult to deal with pre-internet individuals, but in this case the wretched man had the misfortune to get himself a name that defies all reasonable Google searches. If you want your kid to be remembered by posterity and your family name is Main Page, at least name them "Euphyllion Aethelred Main Page", not "William". The question to me is whether he meets notability as an author and possibly academic. If his writings on a notable subject were considered important and influential by his peers, then he might qualify as notable by his authorship. Esperanto is an important topic; my impression is that if he was genuinely "chief collaborator" in the Encyclopedia of Esperanto published in 1933 this probably earns notability on its own: this publication seems to have had influence up to the present day, its articles finding their way into the Esperanto Wikipedia: that suggests lasting influence in his work. I have no idea whether "Pitman's Commercial Esperanto" was considered influential by other Esperantists in his day (remember that notability is not lost; if he would have passed our notability guidelines in 1940, he still passes them today). He was also editor of a few Esperanto journals, and again whether this qualifies him for notability in the way we'd give a modern academic notability for being chief editor of a major journal, I can't tell, because I don't know in how much esteem those journals were held in their day. I'm inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt. Elemimele (talk) 15:34, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's what gets me. Is "Chief Collaborator" a notable role in the writing of the Esperanto Encyclopedia? I need to search to see if the two journals he wrote are anything of importance. Capsulecap ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:07, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Elemimele, @CT55555: After a quick search, it seems that The British Esperantist is a journal from the Esperanto Association of Britain. The page for it says it is more of a magazine and outlet for news related to Esperanto and E.A.B. I cannot find anything mentioning the importance of Esperanto Monthly to the early 20th century Esperanto community. Capsulecap ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:21, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep ...and I'm open to being persuaded. But assuming good faith for offline sources, it seems he was the editor of not just one but two journals, which gives him a double pass at criterion 8 of
WP:NACADEMIC CT55555 (talk) 18:04, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

But take into note that the journals must be noteworthy and important to their community. Are these two Esperanto journals important enough to matter? Capsulecap ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:07, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

He died 122 years ago, so none of the answers to this are likely to be found online. And yet we have 7 days to comment on AfD. The fact that we even know this suggests it was notable somewhat. I can't answer the question about the quality of these journals. That's what I was saying above, I think it's common to give the benefit of the doubt to historical offline things, assume good faith. Which is why I prefaced my "keep" with "weak". Do you think that's a reasonable way to approach this? CT55555 (talk) 22:49, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it is, assuming the benefit of the doubt is important, especially for things like these. Capsulecap ^{(talk • contribs)} 04:11, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:26, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He died in 1940 and a quick nip into The Scotsman archive for Friday 2 February 1940 finds poor Mr Page collapsed after leaving for work despite feeling unwell. He published a book about Esperanto, apparently. There is no mention of his role as Czech Consul - an odd thing in that article. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:50, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'd agree with the discussions above, assume the good faith. Only source I can find is a doctoral? dissertation from the Netherlands, [1], either in German or Dutch, but it talks a bit about the fellow. Oaktree b (talk) 23:46, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's German. I was able read using google translate and it confirmed his court role, so I added that in. If you have a smart phone, I'd recommend the google translate app and you can use the camera function to read direct off the screen. CT55555 (talk) 23:57, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.