Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/M.G.S. Fives

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 Delete, since the doubts on its veracity have not been overcome. Tikiwont (talk) 10:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] M.G.S. Fives

M.G.S. Fives (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Contested PROD. Probably hoax. This is an obscure game played apparently at only one institution. All references are from the same source and are not verifiable. Fails to meet WP:Notable. Gillyweed (talk) 21:26, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - should have been a speedy, as nonsense. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:27, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, nonsense. Tempshill (talk) 22:33, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - it is part of the immense value of Wikipedia as a work of reference that information can be found on it about subjects which clearly do not fall within the mainstream, and yet are nonetheless potentially of interest to many. JDH Owens ^talk 22:53, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment - but JDH it's probably a hoax! Gillyweed (talk) 01:23, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment - I accept that there is a possibility of that. On the other hand, it does have published sources quoted at the bottom, and the books in question do appear to be genuine. Furthermore, as ridiculous as it does sound, it's no less ridiculous than many other documented public school practices from centuries ago - and I can well believe a group of adolescents might wish to resurrect it today for a bit of fun! So although it's possible that it's a hoax, I wouldn't go so far as to say it's probable; and in keeping with what I said earlier about Wikipedia being valuable as an all-encompassing work of reference, I think it's worth giving an article that appears to have some sources - and some form of photographic record as well, from a plausible source - the benefit of the doubt, pending some further sourcing, if anyone could find it. For the moment, deleting it seems somewhat precipitate. JDH Owens ^talk 19:12, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete - Whilst I had previously been prepared to give it the benefit of the doubt, this article is now clearly a hoax. Thanks are owed to Gillyweed for his diligence! Jdhowens90 (talk) 08:57, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - I think we can assume this is a hoax with reasonable confidence, unless and until it receives some kind of media attention Vneiomazza (talk) 21:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - whatever happened to the glorious process of habeus corpus, whilst this article does not apear to be concreted in media attention (why would it be?) or etensive literature (how many books can one expect to be on such an obscure subject?) the decision of deletion purely based on the assumption or "gut feeling" that this is a hoax is unfounded. I personally found this article extremely useful in my research on the effect of the English Civil Wars on the national sporting conscious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tpoole7 (talk • contribs) 15:37, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep - As author of the article I can give only my word that it is not a hoax. I wish that there were more sources available, and hope to uncover some with further investigation. As for the notability, I simply wanted this information to be available for anyone who wanted it, feeling this game to be of some historical interest. I thank JDH for his support. Sonsoftheowl (talk) 16:09, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep - I distinctly remember my late Grandfather(an Old Mancunian) telling me about this game when i was studying at Manchester Grammar in the 1950s, and despite the best efforts of myself and my school-chums to find the original rule book we could not locate it. I think its terrific that the current generation have resurrected such a wonderful and ancient game. I feel that Wikipedia is an essential medium for these boys to bring back to life this tradition that outdates most public school games in England. I know i am no written source to be quoted, but i can verify that this game did exist at MGS in some form at the end of the 19th Century when my granfather was there. Im sorry i cannot be of more help but i remain convinced that to remove this article could spell an end for a game fortunate enough to be given a new lease of life. --Jphouseman (talk) 18:07, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep - Why are people so ashamed of history? This is a unique piece of cultural heritage that has survived into an era that sadly cares little for its past. It deserves be cherished and preserved, and not so impertinently discarded. Uri Nivson (talk) 22:00, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Further Comment - it is wonderful to have the MGS pupils joining in this discussion. I note that few of you have contributed to anything at WP other than to this article. I also note that the references provided do not exist in any libraries. I call this a hoax. Gillyweed (talk) 22:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment I would like to point out that the book "Dare to be Wise" and a subsequent edition of the history of the first four hundred years are both referenced on the main MGS page. Perhaps before you dismiss these references you should explore the crypts of the Bodleian. Finally, may I thank both Mr Houseman and Dr Poole for contacting me with regards to their contact and study of the game, and for showing their support here.Sonsoftheowl (talk) 12:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Further Comment please note the additions to the sources section, which subsequent research has brought to my attention.Sonsoftheowl (talk) 17:30, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment i would like to bring to attention that whilst i am an old boy of the school my interest in this topic is primarily through academic research, i just happened to find this example of personal interest and decided to further investigate on reading my own copy of Dare to be Wise, which i can assure you exists as it is physically on my bookshelf at this moment, and although it may not be the most in depth and accurate study it was forced upon me at an Old Boys' Dinner and i have subsequently found it of use. In regards to my lack of editing i was contacted by Sonsoftheowl in regards to this wikipedia page, i have no further interest in editing this site as i find it encourages laziness in students. However that is off the topic, i merely felt it necessary to address your slander —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tpoole7 (talk • contribs) 19:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. I have no problem with obscure topics being present within the project. However, no reliable sources equals no article in my estimation. The books presented as sources have no ISBN, and we are being offered no way to verify that they exist, or that they contain the information claimed. Even if both should be the case, there is nothing to suggest that the books are of sufficient independance from the school that we could consider them as being any more reliable than the myriads of self-published pieces available on Amazon.com. Experience also has taught us that where there is so much activity from SPAs - there are at least four in this discussion - that there may be verifiability concerns as well. I intend no insult to our participants here, but there simply is no proof that this subject 1. exists 2. can be verified and 3. is notable enough for an article. It is the sources and the article that must speak, not the game's able defenders. Xymmax (talk) 19:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment please not the addition of not one, but the two ISBN numbers for the most recent history of the school. Unfortunately the other books published are too old to have such easy methods of identification. If only historical fact was as easy as Ranke thought.Sonsoftheowl (talk) 20:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment. Well, that is promising. Would it be possible to obtain a citation to the specific pages of the page in which the game is described? Xymmax (talk) 21:30, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Further Comment Citations added. Sonsoftheowl (talk) 14:46, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep - I am impressed by the commitment of some of the involved users. Trying to seek the truth, a very admirable task. However it seems apparent that several members of this discussion have a tenuous, if any, connection to the school in question. It is clear that most of the advocates for this site's deletion hold books in the highest of stead, it is increadibly easy for a person or persons to have nonsense published (see The Bible), so why would the fact that something be mentioned in a book prove its worth. Personally I think that the boys who attend this establishment would probably know the history of their school better than most outside observers, have any of you even heard of the Manchester Grammar School prior to this site's creation? I also think that the page in question holds a great deal of merit as Fives is an ancient British sport of illustrius worth (if not slightly neglected of late) that has a plethora of varieties around the country; Eton, Rugby, Sheffield, to name but a few places that play or have played some manner of Fives.

• Keep - I too am impressed by the tenacity of certain users. However I think it would be an outrage to delete this page. Firstly it is significantly more notable than certain other wiki articles, this game has entertained many people throughout the years. It is somewhat similar to podex which again originated at the Manchester Grammar School. I believe the sources cited are correct although unfortunately further sources are somewhat difficult to find due to the age of the game. No doubt there are other sources present, however some of these will be personal accounts or from written records, which would be somewhat difficult to prove their authenticity. In this instance, I suggest that you trust the creator that this is indeed not a hoax. New Big G (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 21:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

HOAX - Time to cut the crap laddies, you've wasted enough time now. Yesterday I emailed the Communications Manager, Sally Rogers, at Manchester Grammar School. My email said: "Dear Sally, I wonder if you would comment on the accuracy of this article on Wikipedia please: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M.G.S._Fives Is it a hoax? Thanks" Her response was simple. It said: "It most certainly is.... have you ordered the deletion? Very many thanks for spotting this one. Best wishes" If anyone else wishes to follow up on this, simply go to the MGS website and find the Communication Officer's contact details. I won't post it here for obvious reasons. Have a good day. Gillyweed (talk) 21:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

READ THE ARTICLE - It clearly states in the article that this game continues without the masters' knowledge (masters' - plural), as Sally Rogers is a member of the MGS staff I believe she would fall under the aforementioned category. However certain persons have now brought the game to the attention masters and most probably crushed four centuries of tradition. Clearly many have taken it upon themselves, no matter what evidence was provided, to prevent a select group passing on information of an historic game to those who desire to learn. John Fortesque-Smythe (talk) 21:45, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment: So to keep the tradition secret, it gets posted on Wikipedia? Enough said! Gillyweed (talk) 21:47, 11 March 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.