Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Butt of malmsey

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. Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:59, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Butt of malmsey

[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)

Delete and merge with Fall of George Plantagenet, Duke of Clarence. Respectfully disgree with the creator. It does not give burden to the second article, namely because a big portion of this is already in that article and the part which isn't is basically explaining what a butt is and what malmsey is. Omnis Scientia (talk) 18:05, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also want it noted that I did merge and redirect the necessary information to the other page but that effort was reversed by the creator, and I understand why. But I still think its not necessary to create a seperate page for the method of execution - only used once - when its already went into detail in the second. Omnis Scientia (talk) 18:10, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, minor historical trivia about the Fall of George Plantagenet, Duke of Clarence that is better covered in that article. There's nothing left worth merging and the title is unlikely to serve a purpose as a redirect. --Aquillion (talk) 18:40, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:53, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, obviously, albeit equally respectfully; my reasons for unaccepting the redirect were that it would constitute WP:UNDUEWEIGHT in other articles. My belief has not been altered. Serial (speculates here) 21:26, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I find a range of coverage that is not already included in this article. Serious coverage includes Culinary Shakespeare: Staging Food and Drink in Early Modern England (2016) which has a chapter on "Fluid Mechanics: Shakespeare's Subversive Liquors" that consider the symbolism of the butt of malmsey; also The Living Age, Volume 53, (1857), Notes and Queries, page 623, which also considers why malmsey? how - was the butt open at the top? etc; and Nineteen Centuries of Drink in England (1884) also talks about how and why, and the origin of the name malmsey. The Comic History of England (1894) also considers how and why, and comments about Edward the IVth "The butt of Malmsey in which he caused his brother to be drowned was, it is believed, actually sold as a full fruity wine with "plenty of body in it," after poor Clarence had been in soak till death relieved him from his drenching." (This also appears in a joke in the Illustrated London News in 1847.) Hugh Ross Williamson used The Butt of Malmsey as a title for one of his books [1]. Elizabeth Peters' contemporary mystery novel The Murders of Richard III contains a beheading, a poisoning, and a butt of malmsey, according to a review in the Sunday Express. A comical article on "How to Write a Novel" in the People's Friend (1901) suggests that the plot should end with the hero under a locomotive or at the bottom of a butt of malmsey. Stratford-upon-Avon had (or has) a darts team and a pub called Butt of Malmsey (the pub also hosted folk clubs, discos and plays). A case in 1526 in which it was alleged that a carrier broke a butt of malmsey is discussed in The Oxford History of the Laws of England Volume VI. A History of Agriculture and Prices in England says that "malmsey is first entered by the butt in the Wardrobe account of 1500", and gives prices compared to other kinds and containers of wines, and lists statutes about volume, prices and duty.

In other words, there is plenty of other significant coverage, over a long period of time, of the various aspects covered in this article, and other cultural references, which could be added to this article, and which confirm that it certainly meets WP:GNG. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:39, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - clearly a worthwhile and self-sufficient article in its own right. And agreeing with RebeccaGreen, by whose scholarship I am mightily impressed, that there's a lot more could well be added to the article. Tim riley talk 17:09, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I count thirty-seven sources. Is that not enough these days? Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:20, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per RebeccaGreen, whose extensive list I find convincing. Even though it is a short measure of the full 126 separate items of coverage implied. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:24, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per RebeccaGreen. Obviously sufficient material for a standalone and separate article (we have numerous articles on people's deaths, and there's nothing that suggests this should be any different. - SchroCat (talk) 19:06, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge~~ to Fall of George Plantagenet, Duke of Clarence#Butt of malmsey. This seems like an unnecessary WP:CFORK of a pre-existing article on this topic. To those commenting we should keep this because we have many articles on the deaths of individuals, I think they missed the nominators point that we already have an article on Plantagenet's death (and the events leading up to it) and that this is a second competing article on the same topic. We don't need two separate articles on the same person's execution.4meter4 (talk) 23:59, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, only SchroCat has mentioned keeping an article "because we have many articles on the deaths of individuals"—which is not the baseless argument you suggest either—so you've ignored the arguments of several others. The current article is currently ~1390 words; the 'Fall of' article is at ~4440. You would nearly double the target article's size. And while you say "we already have an article on Plantagenet's death"; no, no we do not. It is, as you parenthesise, about "the events leading up to it". Only a few lines are (were, before the nom edit warred a chunk of duplicate material back in) on his actual execution, for the reason that Clarence's execution is not the pertinent academic topic; his fall, and what it teaches historians about 15th-century bastard feudal political relations, is. The current article, on the other hand, examines the historical and cultural impact of a 'butt of malmsey'. The in-depth discussion about Shakespeare would be absolutely WP:UNDUE in the 'Fall of' article, as is historical detail on tunnage and poundage, poems, Dickens views. Are you really suggesting that discussions vis a vis the history and technical specs of an ancient unit of measurement would be relevant to the 'Fall of' article? Or Lermontov's comparison to a Russian dragoon. Per WP:CFORK, spinoff articles become necessary ... when the expansion of a section creates an undue weight problem for the article, which is precisely the situation here. It's a notable standalone subtopic and by no no stretch f the imagination can it be termed "a second competing article on the same topic" as anything else on the project. Serial (speculates here) 10:56, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A better defined lead differentiating this article's scope from the other might sway my opinion, but as of now I disagree that this isn't a competing article. I also think most of the content would not be WP:UNDUE in the other article which I think is implied by my merge vote. A few details probably would need to be trimmed (or better yet preserved in a notes section), but they are rather esoteric and not necessarily essential for an encyclopedia. Please keep your comments non-personal by avoiding "you" statements. It comes off as hostile. I'm not planning on responding further unless some actual work is done on this article in article space to change my perception of the content area.4meter4 (talk) 16:12, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Closing admin: For the record, I have substantially improved the lead, but I'm afraid I am unsure how to directly respond to comments without recourse to the 2000-year old Indo-European deictic known as the second-person singular. Serial (speculates here) 15:51, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Try using I statements instead, or discuss the article and not people. That enables the avoidance of pronouns directed towards individuals altogether. I statements are a great way to avoid you statements. I can say a lot by expressing what I have done, and why, or talking about my thoughts. I think the new lead addresses my concerns, and has substantially defined the topic as a separate content area. I have therefore struck my merge opinion above, and support keeping the article. Good work Serial Number 54129.4meter4 (talk) 17:12, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, 4meter4, for your change of heart. But also for that suggestion. That's a really interesting idea. I mean it; it's probably the most original view on conflict avoidance I've ever heard in this place. it should be an essay—and promulgated. Most talk pages would be healthier. The noticeboards, definitely. Cheers! And have a good weekend :) Serial (speculates here) 18:12, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Serial Number 54129 Thanks. I wish I could claim credit, but this is a well known tool used in teaching communication strategies by psychologists in group/family/couples therapy. For example (https://www.relationshipsnsw.org.au/blog/i-statements-vs-you-statements/). I agree it would be a good guideline for an effective strategy at avoiding conflict and effectively communicating on talk pages. Best.4meter4 (talk) 18:34, 8 February 2025 (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.