Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Constantia Jones

Constantia Jones was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was KEEP

From Cleanup: Constantia Jones seems to be a joke, or just vandalism - Andrevan

• It's really suspicious, but who can prove that such a thing didn't happen? It is very unlikely, given what I know of the trade and punishments. Minor thieves were not hung, and prostitutes certainly weren't. Women were rarely hung. It's very suspect. Geogre
• (moved from Cleanup by SimonP)
• Keep. I am the author of this page. The source of this historical anecdote, and an account of its significance, is Peter Linebaugh's The London Hanged: Crime and Civil Society in the Eighteenth Century (2nd ed.). This was discussed and all but settled on my talk page; as I wrote there, I wrote this article partly because I found the subject matter interesting and partly because I feel Wikipedia leans too much towards regurgitating trivia that's already available elsewhere on the Internet. Why would anyone assume this to be a joke/vandalism? Just because Google doesn't come up with anything for the search? Wikisux 06:59, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • It wasn't a question of a search. It was a question of not being consistent with Tyburn Tree nor any of the other social histories I've read. When did it happen? How many offenses had she committed? This is very important. "Code of the time and place" is impossible, because the time and place isn't given! My specialty is early 18th c., and I'm aware of Peter Linebaugh. Please make the entry complete so that it isn't just a salacious story but instead locates this woman in time. I stand by my statement that women were very rarely hung, prostitutes not hung, and minor thieves not hung. There have to be a lot more details in the story, and the way it's written it adds to the general impression that it was "consistent" with the 18th c. criminal practice. In fact, it's an exception. Also, if there is an existing discussion, could it be moved or copied to the Discussion page for the article? Geogre 12:49, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • On an entirely different front, why is the execution of Constantia Jones (in some year) notable? Why is this criminal case more notable than the execution of hundreds before or after? Without a date of execution, what is it, exactly, that we learn? If Linebaugh was talking about English law, what did he say we were learning about the law at that time? I really think this just makes stereotypes, but I also think it's not notable as written. Geogre 17:09, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • For that matter, why no entry on the most famous highwayman of the century, whose confession and hanging inspired Defoe, as well as a number of broadsheet writers, and then inspired John Gay to write the most famous English opera of the century, and then inspired Henry Fielding to write a novel? Why is Constantia Jones notable when Jonathan Wild isn't? Geogre 17:12, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC) (Yes, I will write a Jonathan Wild article.)
• Keep. -Sean Curtin 07:35, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. it seems entirely consistent with the criminal code of the time and place. ping 07:50, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. --Palapala 15:12, 2004 Jul 13 (UTC)
• Keep - Tεxτurε 15:30, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. A.) It's not particularly an interesting fact and I don't see why it should have a separate article in an encyclopedia. It would be fine in an article on "Capital Punishment," say, or "Hanging", or "18th Century British Justice & the Legal Code", or some other article like that. But not as a stand-alone. And B.) There are no facts here beyond the bald assertion of the hanging. What was the date? Where was the place? What is the source of this info? I might write a brief article saying that the Salem Witch mania spread so far that in the Mass. territory that later became Maine a woman named Sarah Perkins was drowned in a pond for allegedly being a witch. It might even sound plausible. But so what?Hayford Peirce 22:59, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Keep, but add sources in a References section. What does nobody follow the Cite your sources guidelines? --Alexandre 00:15, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

• • I'd still really like to know the notability of this figure. I'm sorry if I seem to be really unloading, but history by anecdote bugs me, and New Historicism has introduced a lot of that. If Constantia Jones was a celebrated case at the time, readers need to know it. In fact, hanging of women grew to be a scandal during the 18th century, especially in London, and some hangings became outrages. If Linebaugh pulled this example, there's a reason that we need to warrant an encyclopedia article. Geogre 00:22, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. --Gary D 06:30, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, unless more info is provided to indicate time, place, and importance of this event. Denni☯ 01:20, 2004 Jul 18 (UTC)
• Delete. I think we need to be a bit hard-nosed about this. Wikisux has significant philosophical objections to Wikipedia's current policies, one of which is the ease with which they claim false material can be added. I'm not saying that this is such material, but I am saying that there is extra onus of proof on such users (and also on anons and on glove-puppets) to cite their sources. Andrewa 20:03, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep (change of vote) and cleanup to put some of the excellent detective work now in the talk page and in this discussion itself into the article. Andrewa 00:36, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • The lack of a response to the single, central objection to the article is also telling. What year did it happen? No response. Surely, that's easy to provide. In this case some experts (on 1680-1735 I am expert) have asked for specifics, and none have been forthcoming. Further, the secondary objection, "What is notable about this hanging," has also gone unanswered. All I can say is that, from a peer review point of view, this article completely fails. Geogre 23:14, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• The Chronicles of Newgate at [1] hasn't heard of her, neither has the list of executions at Newgate found at [2]. It may be that this is entirely believable for the time but this character appears entirely fictional. Delete -- Graham ☺ | Talk 23:26, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • PS: The standard punishment for this sort of crime at the time was to spend a period of time in the stocks, not hanging. See Margaret Clap, for instance. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 23:32, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • PPS: I've just done a search at the Old Bailey's website which, if she was hanged, would have been where she was sentenced because, iirc, the Old Bailey was the only court that had authority to pass sentence of execution in 18th century London. There was a Constantia Jones, but she wasn't a prostitute and she wasn't hanged, she was a house servant who appeared as a witness in another case. See [3]. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 23:40, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. The evidence presented here is certainly seems sufficient to sentence this article to a quick demise. - SimonP 02:07, Jul 19, 2004 (UTC)
• Comment: To Geogre, I accept that you dispute the reason given for the article's significance, but I don't think the appropriate response is to delete the article. Rather, wouldn't it benefit from the insight and expertise you can provide? If you have a differing interpretation as to why Constantia Jones was significant, then by all means spend a minute or two to add your comments to the article. Wikisux 06:28, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Comment: I clarified time, place and significance (which were already explained--are the deletionists here even reading the articles?) Linebaugh's date for the event appears to be 27-31 August 1725, to judge from the footnote, but I'm not confident enough to pin the date down any further than "under PM Robert Walpole." Even so, I think the article is pretty bulletproof now. Wikisux 06:28, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

• Delete or move. I've just reread this article again and I'm still baffled by why Wikisux thinks it merits a separate article. At the very best it should be moved into some other article on British justice or court system or attitudes towards women at that time or god knows what and be incorporated there as an example of whatever that article happens to be about. Short of that, it should be deleted.Hayford Peirce 15:14, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

• An analogy. Suppose I wrote an article like the following: "Robert Parks was an African-American resident of Montgomery, Alabama, in the mid-20th century. Sometime during the Eisenhower administration he boarded a public bus. He was told to move to the rear of the bus. He refused to do so. He was arrested by the local police and jailed overnight. It was the 14th time that he had been arrested. The next morning he left jail and went to work. Later he was fined $5 for his misdemeanor behavior."
  • Period. End of story. That's all. No mention of the civil rights movement. No involvement with going to a higher court to protest his arrest, and then to the Supreme Court. Just a routine incident that happened hundreds of times with no futher consequences. Contrast my article with that on Rosa Parks. Wikisuk's proposed article about Jones should fill the same criteria as the article on Parks.Hayford Peirce 16:40, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

• New evidence listed on Talk:Constantia Jones shows that this character may not have been fictional after all. However I am still wary that this execution demonstrates any bias whatsoever outside the harsh laws of the period against criminals, and I question the need to have an existing article for every criminal that has ever been hanged in British history but I'm changing my vote to a weak keep for now. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 16:42, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.