Talk:Sir Lamiel

Page blanking[edit]

I’ve restored this page, again.
It seems to me that we need to differentiate between the book character and the engine.
It was deleted previously because an editor thought “This train(sic) seems more important than a character named once in one book” (a non sequiter: the engine already has an article) , and “n reliable sources” (well, it’s a classic of English literature; and the engine page has no sources at all).
This is the third time the page has been constituted; if anyone is unhappy with this, perhaps they should discuss it, rather than deleting the content out of hand. Moonraker12 (talk) 11:39, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as the one restoring challenged material, the burden of evidence is really on you to explain why it's notable. Mind I didn't "delete" the content previously; I redirected the title to an existing relevant article because the current content isn't, well, notable. The character is mentioned once by Malory, and that's in a long list of over 100 Knights of the Round Table. Other than the book itself (a primary source), the only other cite is to an unreliable personal website. I would have nominated it for deletion, but as there was another article that used the title, redirection seemed a better option.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:22, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notable.. hmmm, fair point.

My main reason for reinstating the page was altogether practical. When I edited the List of King Arthur class locomotives, putting the link to the engine at the number column, and the link to whatever it was named after in the name column (as for every other locomotive class) the link to Sir Lamiel came up as a redirect to the engine page. So (when I found a previously written and blanked) article, I re-instated it, as being redirected to the engine page made little sense.

It strikes me the whole thing is an edit trap, where fixing a problem creates another problem, the solution of which re-creates the original problem. A red link for Sir Lamiel on the class list is begging the question, "Who was he"? And seeing as 777 is the only preserved N15 around, if it’s deleted it’s only a matter of time before someone is minded to re-write it. And a redirect to the 777 page isn’t much help; anyone following the Sir Lamiel link will want to know who he was. So having something at the Sir Lamiel page, like a glorified dab page, seemed the least worst option.

But if you have a more elegant solution, then I'd be interested: Is there a pressing reason to remove it? Moonraker12 (talk) 12:34, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The reason not to have an independent article is that it's not notable. This would quickly be deleted at AfD. However, it's a plausible search term for the train engine (assuming that's notable), so a redirect there is preferable. We could explain who he is at that article.--Cúchullain ^t/c 12:59, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I had thought being a Knight of the Round Table, and the namesake of the only N15 steam locomotive still in existence, conferred some notability; but I imagine we could argue about that.

I would also think that if someone wanted to know who he was, a page stating what (little) is known about him, with a link to the engine page, would be better for them (and for the project) than a page redirecting them somewhere else so they have to search out the information themselves; but, again we probably disagree there, too.

So, is there a way to get an outside opinion on this? Moonraker12 (talk) 16:24, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You could try dispute resolution if you wish, but that seems unnecessary for something so trivial. Again, to establish notability you'd need to show there's significant coverage in reliable sources. There really aren't any for a character mentioned a single time in a single chapter of Malory. The train article already says literally everything that can be said about "Sir Lamiel". I could also put it up for deletion to get the community's input, but the result would almost assuredly be to restore the redirect.Cúchullain ^t/c 20:32, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Something so trivial": Well, we aren't in agreement; and, it depends what you have in mind here.

If it is an just an academic discussion, I can agree to disagree; but if you are fixing to dump the page again, I would like another opinion on that. The page has been constituted three times now, and it’s only yourself so far that’s wanted rid of it.

And I accept the notability is weak (though I don’t think it’s non-existent) but I also think there is a common sense reason to keep the page as it is.

So, what would you like to do? Agree to differ? Or phone a friend? Moonraker12 (talk) 18:34, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article simply doesn't pass the notability threshold, and it never could, so it simply can't stand as an independent article. You can ask for a third opinion if you wish. As you've expressed that you object to the redirect, I would not redirect it again without an AfD discussion or some other consensus.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:47, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

:I've been asked to comment. I can't see why the redirect to SR N15 class 777 Sir Lamiel which tells us about the knight as well is a problem. We can if needs be protect the redirect. Dougweller (talk) 12:24, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Doug. I hope this settles the issue?Cúchullain ^t/c 12:55, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough; I asked that we have another opinion, and you have one there that agrees with you, not me; so that’s me done. Regards, Moonraker12 (talk) 11:50, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Page protection? What do you think’s been going on, here? I thought it had been pretty civilized...Moonraker12 (talk) 11:53, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It has been, definitely, and I wasn't referring to you. I meant if we get scads of newbies just removing it without discussion, but that's unlikely. Dougweller (talk) 14:39, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]