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 redirect to Saddleworth#Rushcart. Rough consensus is to delete. The debate has exhaustively discussed the available sources and obviously the difference of opinion is about whether they constitute "significant coverage in reliable sources". It's quite clear upon interrogation that one or two of the keep !votes have not really analysed the sources at all. The keeps that have (eg Warden) are perfectly valid but consensus is against them. The consensus is that the sources, taken together, are too local, do not give sufficient attention to the subject, or are not sufficiently independent of the subject, to give rise to "significant coverage in reliable sources".
While there's no consensus for "merge" or "redirect", there's no consensus, or in fact any arguments at all, against such a course. So for the time being, the article is converted to a redirect to Saddleworth#Rushcart. That way the page history remains available for content to be merged elsewhere (just please do so in accordance with WP:CWW). If anyone disagrees with the redirect target, it's not part of the "consensus" here, so best to discuss on the article's talk page or just change it yourself. Mkativerata (talk) 17:22, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment surely the question is whether evidence of notability exists? There are 13 hits on Google News, including national newspapers, and nine on Google Books. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 16:25, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article has been flagged with a ((Notability)) tag since September 2008 and none has been produced. Have you actually read any of those Google Books links? Here's a one example, a footnote from page 225 of Dancing from past to present: nation, culture, identities (2007) : "Saddleworth Morris Team member interviewed on ITV television program Second Tuesday, 1984. It should be recognized, however, that not all views expressed in this program were genuinely held." That's all it has to say, nothing else. MalleusFatuorum16:29, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your first comment is not normally regarded as an argument for deletion -- see WP:NOEFFORT. It is, however, an argument for making an effort to find some sources. Your second seems to argue that because one source is not significant then all others cannot be. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 16:49, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and by the way, yes I had read that source on Gbooks. It's a footnote referring back to a page that isn't available, so it is not actually possible from Gbooks to say what coverage that source might or might not have. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 16:50, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think you've missed the point; that coverage wasn't of the Saddleworth Morris Men, but the reporting of a comment made by a member of the Saddleworth Morris Men on a local TV program. Are you arguing that the other GBook hits are more substantial? I can't see it myself. MalleusFatuorum
My point is that when there is prima facie evidence of notability, such as ghits on Books and News, it is necessary to address them, rather than argue, as you seem to be doing, that if there were evidence then someone else would have added it by now. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 17:05, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am saying quite clearly that there is no evidence of notability, and you certainly haven't produced any. How much more clearly can it be said? MalleusFatuorum17:27, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, that's a clearer statement. The initial nomination saying "no indication" I took to refer to the article, rather than to the universe at large. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 17:35, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Number of references is immaterial. You need to provide reliable sources that do two things; support the facts and the notability of this group. Let's take the very first for instance, [1] which is supporting the assertion that "They were formed in 1974 and revived a tradition of Morris dancing in the area that dates back centuries". In fact all the source says is that the Saddleworth Morris Men were reformed in 1974. MalleusFatuorum21:06, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, in what way does that citation, which incidentally I did not add, fail to support the wording in the article, and what does it have to do with this discussion anyway? Secondly, notability guidelines talk of "multiple" sources, so multiplicity is indeed material. Thirdly, I don't "need" to do anything. Like you and everyone else I'm a volunteer. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 21:20, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Then let me spell it out for you; the only assertion here is that the Saddleworth Morris Men were reformed in 1974, not that they revived anything. In what way does that make them notable? MalleusFatuorum21:33, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It does not, and I didn't say that it did. I say that the eight references I added between them constitute sufficient indication of notability. To take the one I did not add, and say, correctly, that it does not by itself support notability, is quite beside the point. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 21:36, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously that's my opinion, so what are you trying to add by saying that "the closing admin, will give it the weight it deserves"? Other than trying to persuade others than my opinion is worth less yours? MalleusFatuorum21:50, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not put words into my mouth: I am making no such suggestion. What I am suggesting is that I have given my opinion on whether these sources demonstrate notability, you have given yours, the points have been adequately clarified for the benefit of others, and that further discussion on this precise issue will probably generate more heat than light. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 06:24, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You have been adding citations that do not support the material preceding them. Where in this does it support "The very first members of the team were ... David Lees, Len Butterworth, Dave Caddick, Ron Yates, John Dunning, & Allan (Fred) Broadbent. The idea to start a Morris Dancing side in Saddleworth was borne out of a conversation with friends in a local pub." All it says is that the Saddleworth Morris Men practice at the pub on a Thursday night. The article is about the pub, not the Morris men. MalleusFatuorum20:52, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Whether or not this criticism is justified, it is a matter of common-or-garden editing and has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not the article should be kept or deleted. It is also phrased in an unnecessarily accusatory tone. Please do not disrupt this discussion with such comments. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 20:58, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You have been either incompetently or dishonestly adding almost random citations to make it look as if the material has been properly sourced when it hasn't been, and can't be. Here's another example: neither of the two citations given towards the end of the third paragraph support anything in that paragraph. MalleusFatuorum21:02, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, It is a side that has being going since at least 1974, and responsible for the revival of the Rushcart festival, a peasant tradition that goes back to 1380.Ideal footwear for giving a poor article a good kicking. It gives a good opportunity for linking to many folk song and dance terms such as Long Sword dance which is of course the symbol of the EFDSS with links to Cecil Sharp.. And there are more of them than in other entertainment groups say Rolling Stones. It could do with a ce, and the links picked out. If folk traditions are to be taken seriously then setting up a category tree may be a way forward and the relevant sides contacted, to see if they would contribute first to a list page, and then select from these entries, sides notable enough for their own articles.--ClemRutter (talk) 11:30, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
UndecidedDelete The way the article is currently structured, it could be about anything. I could replace "Morris Men" with "Plasterer", and write about how the Saddleworth Plasterer drives a Ford Transit, and how his first job was to plaster the local vicar's house. What exactly is notable about them? Parrotof Doom11:39, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still waiting to see what these mysterious independent reliable sources are that you believe have significantly covered these Morris men. MalleusFatuorum20:34, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If it had been addressed to you then I would have addressed it to you. It's quite clear that you don't really understand sourcing at all. MalleusFatuorum21:05, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you might more usefully consider searching out these elusive sources, and removing the deceitful ones you added yesterday? MalleusFatuorum21:13, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sergeant Cribb, newspapers mention a great many things, but as far as I can see the only references to this troupe are in passing. None of the sources used give significant coverage, the articles are all about other things, and not the Saddleworth Morris Men.
I don't consider this significant coverage: " In the car park by the wheelie bin, the Saddleworth Morris Men from Yorkshire arrive, trotting like pit ponies, bells on their black clogs, wearing hanging baskets of flowers and feathers on their heads, led by a meaty man with a whip". And it was published during the silly season. Graham Colm (talk) 21:41, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No opinion yet on this article or whether or not the source in question represents "significant coverage" but I have to agree with this view. Is it wise to discount a news story because it was published at a particular time of the year? --Ron Ritzman (talk) 16:19, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Really? It's strange then, that everyone else commenting on this AfD spotted: At the next village pub, something quite different happens. They release the beast. In the car park by the wheelie bin, the Saddleworth Morris Men from Yorkshire arrive, trotting like pit ponies, bells on their black clogs, wearing hanging baskets of flowers and feathers on their heads, led by a meaty man with a whip. There is none of the hop, skip and whack about this troupe. They have a muscular, purposeful swagger. Their dance is physical and masculine, and beautifully aggressive under their great flowered hats. They have the gimlet-eyed, tuber-featured faces of the north, and suddenly the morris is captivating. The rhythm stamps out darker motifs and bellicose camaraderie. The patterns they make stay in the mind’s eye. You can see them weave spells. My small boy offers a swan’s feather he found to one of the dancers, who takes off his hat to put it in. The boy’s mother asks if she can see the hat. “You mustn’t put it on,” the dancer warns like a woodland troll in a fairy story. “I don’t like to say in front of your man, but if a lass wears the hat she has to have… you know… go to bed with the morris man. That’s the rule.”╟─TreasuryTag►directorate─╢21:41, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, it includes a description of A. A. Gill's impression of the SMM. Would you claim that the Britannia Coco-nut Dancers of Bacup were equally worthy of an article, because A. A. Gill describes his impression of them too? MalleusFatuorum23:03, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I note that you haven't used A. A. Gill's article. But the difference between the Nutters and the SMM is very clearly that articles have been written about them, whereas none have been written about the Saddleworth Morris Men. MalleusFatuorum00:57, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
delete. The piece by aa gill is almost the epitome of insignificant coverage. The only thing you could use that for is to say they were at a certain festival one year. If that's the best coverage then there certainly is not enough to the notability of the subject.Polequant (talk) 23:33, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article text gives no notability. Are these guys rock stars? Do they get covered (well) in the press? They sound like they are not even notable enough to do this stuff professionally. This is a clogging version of a Myspace garage band.TCO (talk) 04:51, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - but suggest that the verifiable material is added to Saddleworth (where a brief mention already exists), which seems the right location for this sort of thing (along with any other borderline cultural material). Rushcart also needs some attention. Carcharoth (talk) 06:00, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There does seem to be some difficulty with how to establish notablity. There is dearth of articles on North West Morris Cotswold Morris and other traditional dance forms, so it is not surprising that editors (including myself) are unfamiliar on where to find a source that can verify notablity. In some ways all folk traditions followed the oral model, until they became the focus of middle class academic study by the likes of Cecil Sharp, who established a written record which became revered. Most of these sides were revivals of an older tradition that was tied to the locality, this side seems to be respected within the movement because they revived the Rush- bearing ceremonies (And I hadn't heard of that either). Longevity seems to be an indicator- but that is only orally. A solution may be to collapse the information into North-west morris dance revival (1970s) where other sides such as Stockport Morris men could be documented. All we need is some committed morris men to share their knowledge and write a few of these articles. A few links that could give a starting point, try [2],a Morris wiki, Dave Mallinson, Cleckheaton a publisher and knowledgeable.--ClemRutter (talk) 10:39, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Cant let that POV pass. Bampton dance Cotswold- not North West- I doubt they would even be allowed into the Red Rose county! There are as many schisms in Morris as there are in Christianity. The bullet needs to be bitten and Bampton Morris Dancers rewritten as an articla on Cotswold Morris- which would provide the precedent for Stockport Morris men to be merged with a new article on North West Morris--- sorry we are talking about Saddleworth Morris Men! I have found that JStor has a collection of historic Journals of the EFDSS English Folk Dance and Song Society. If anyone has a JStor password they could search for notability there.--ClemRutter (talk) 14:10, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and do as Carcharoth suggests (merge the usable content). There is no significant coverage of this group. --Errant(chat!)09:58, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Let's look at the references: 1) is insignificant coverage from an unreliable source. 2) and 3) are from the group's own website. 4) is more about the festival and the rushcart than the dance troupe. 5) I don't even know where to start. 6), 7), 8) brief mentions. None of these are close to being enough to pass the GNG. BigDom07:53, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The references are not RSs. Coverage of a local group of performers by a local newspaper or magazine is dubious as a RS for notability, because coverage of local events by such sources is indiscriminate. The group's website is obviously unusable to show notability, though it's certainly usable for the routine facts about the group.I agree with the evaluation that the others are mentions. It's articles like this which make local events and performers one of my exceptions to a general support of reasonably wide inclusion. For material like this, I'd support the idea of a Wikipedia Two - an encyclopedia supplement where the standard of notability is much relaxed, but which will be different from Wikia by still requiring WP:Verifiability, and WP:NPOV. DGG ( talk ) 16:33, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Newspapers such as the Sunday Times and The Daily Telegraph are not local - they are national with substantial circulations. In any case, there's a book of 51 pages, Rushcarts in Saddleworth, coverage in journals such as The Journal of the English Folk Dance Society and English Dance and Song and much more besides. Warden (talk) 18:08, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. There is plenty of material which may be used to develop the topic by means of ordinary editing and it is our policy to prefer this to deletion. Warden (talk) 18:47, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I did produce some. But you're the one trying to make a case here. Where is your policy-based argument for deletion? All I've seen so far is some weak notability grumbles but these do not seem sufficient to override our policy which is to prefer ordinary editing. Warden (talk) 20:51, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like you've never read this, so I'll quote you a bit: "'Significant coverage' means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." There has been no significant coverage of the group anywhere. None exists. Therefore this article fails the general notability guidelines. MalleusFatuorum21:36, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I quote WP:SIGCOV all the time myself. You have yourself worked upon this article from these sources and so have found it possible to support content without original research. We therefore have valid content - small but perfectly formed. If this seems too small to stand by itself then we might merge it into some larger topic such as Saddleworth, Rushcart or North West Morris but that that action is not performed by deletion as that would be disruptive to such development. Warden (talk) 23:52, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite. What I did was to eliminate everything that couldn't be sourced, leaving what's there now. But the problem remains that most of the article is sourced to the Saddleworth Morris Men's own web site, as there is no significant coverage anywhere else, thus clearly failing the general notability guidelines. MalleusFatuorum01:05, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Minor, local, no reliable sources to suggest that this is notable by our standards--mere mentions (this has been said better above) don't add up to notability. Drmies (talk) 17:41, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There's certainly seems to be something fishy going on here. Why is this minor topic attracting all this Sturm und Drang? Warden (talk) 20:51, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Because there are far too many users here who have not given heed to TreasuryTag's sources which prove notability of this group :) May I be permitted to close this AFD as per WP:SNOW ? Hungarian Jew (talk) 22:28, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well if I READ the votes, and only COUNT those that have some substantial basis for their decision, then the result is a clear speedy keep. Hungarian Jew (talk) 22:36, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Morris dance. The content is verifiable, but the independent coverage seems to be about the rushcart, with only brief mentions of the Morris Men, so probably isn't enough to meet the guidelines for articles - a sentence or two in the main article would be enough. Peter E. James (talk) 21:59, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are a lot of delete !votes that seem to be IDONTLIKEIT, or perhaps JNN. The sources seem fine (The article TT links to has 2 solid paragraphs on the group for example) and thus the group is notable per Wikipedia's definition of "notable" and honestly seems notable to me even using the English definition of the word too. Hobit (talk) 02:23, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per GNG. Sufficient coverage in RSs, which is what (for our purposes) makes it notable. Notable means, for our purposes, sufficiently "noticed" ... which it is. It need not be "notable" in the normal usage of the word.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:18, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The GNG actually requires that "sources address the subject directly in detail ... Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention". Can you supply even a single source that addresses the subject in anything beyond trivial and passing detail? MalleusFatuorum04:22, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Impressive. 26 comments by you, already. As to your 26th comment, in saying that it has "sufficient coverage in RSs" I refer to the sources referenced on this page in the article, including the one that Hobit and TT refer to above. But you knew that. You simply don't find them to be significant. I do. As do another half dozen editors so far, on this page. Best. (No need to reply, unless you have something new to say ... or are simply trying to drown out the voices of the keep !voters by reaching three dozen comments).--Epeefleche (talk) 06:45, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's true. I am a seven-year-old, who could benefit from learning the wisdom of the ages at your knee, Oh Wise One. Then again, perhaps there is some sliver of possibility that editors who disagree with you have an informed different opinion, and simply think that you are incorrect. I'm just saying... But please ... let loose with comment # 28, if you must, to show the ignorant masses "how it is done". --Epeefleche (talk) 18:42, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, but for the day when my edits can be as civil, enlightened, and non-tendentious as your 29 edits on this very page. MF -- perhaps if you were to focus on the substance, instead of engaging in uncivil ad hominum attacks on the half-dozen editors who see things differently than you do, we would have a more thoughtful discourse here. I've nominated a few dozen articles for deletion this month, and have been editing for a few years. Cut your personal attacks -- they're not appreciated. The editors who view things differently than you do have a few hundred thousand edits between them -- we just think you're wrong. Don't take it personally, and attack each of us with a deluge of posts in an effort to drown out our voice. Many thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:36, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The GNG is a guideline not a policy. It provides extreme examples of trivial and non-trivial sources but does not provide a bright-light boundary between them. That is therefore a matter to be determined by editorial discretion and consensus and so it is to be expected that we might have different views. And we also have policies such as WP:PRESERVE and WP:AFD which advise that deletion should not be used when ordinary editing will suffice to address and improve a topic. In this case, merger with another article seems an obvious better alternative than deletion. Why on earth should we make this a red link? How would this help our readership?Warden (talk) 17:41, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, Epeefleche, the only source that covers them in detail seems to be the A.A. Gill one (excluding, of course, the ones that come from their own website). One source rarely(, if) ever establishes notability. ceranthor17:18, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is more than one source. The Manchester Evening News is another solid online source, for example: "... The Saddleworth Morris Men are famous for their spectacular hats, stacked high with fresh flowers, and unique dances." There also seems to be significant coverage in books such as Yorkshire Miscellany and Rushcarts in Saddleworth but their content is not so easy to get at online. I shall visit a library for these when I get a chance. Warden (talk) 17:41, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There isn't even one source that "addresses the subject directly in detail", or is more than "a trivial mention". The MEN article, which is about the rushcart, not the Saddleworth Morris Men, contains a mere two sentences in passing:
"Saddleworth Morris Men and 20 visiting 'sides' helped pull a three-ton cart eight miles through local villages over the weekend - stopping at the odd pub along the way."
"The Saddleworth Morris Men are famous for their spectacular hats, stacked high with fresh flowers, and unique dances."
The title of the article is "Thousands watch Morris men pull rushcart". The Morris men and their activity are therefore central to the article, not a peripheral or tangential matter. The person who is quoted in the article is the leader of the Saddleworth troupe. The Saddleworth Morris Men are addressed both directly and in person. Q.E.D. Warden (talk) 21:44, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Morris men being discussed in that article certainly include the Saddleworth Morris men, but also the other 20 sides attending the rushbearing. By no stretch of the imagination can you claim that the article is about the Saddleworth Morris Men. MalleusFatuorum21:57, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your point is irrelevant because WP:SIGCOV states, "Significant coverage ... need not be the main topic of the source material.". But as the Saddleworth Morris Men are repeatedly identified as the principal participants, the article is certainly about them in particular. Your assertion thus fails on both counts. Warden (talk) 22:09, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, they're only mentioned briefly twice: once at the start of the article and then again at the end. That is neither "significant coverage" nor "addressing the subject in detail". MalleusFatuorum22:13, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yes it is. The article does more than mention them by name repeatedly. It tells what they wear, what they are famous for, what they do, who their leader is, how recruitment is going and much more besides. It tells us that thousands of people turn up to watch them. I'm sufficiently interested in this now that I may well go myself to this year's Saddleworth festival. Perhaps we should form a troupe of Wikipedian wafflers to perform there; I expect that we'd fit in quite well with the other eccentrics. Warden (talk) 22:47, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, but it's for whichever poor soul has to close this discussion to decide who's right, or at least which way the consensus leans. On a tangential note, I really like what you've done with the Britannia Coco-nut Dancers. Now that really is a bizarre topic. MalleusFatuorum22:59, 7 July 2011 (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.
