Talk:Gilbert Paige

Contested deletion

This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because... (this man was an important figure in the early history of Barnstaple as he was Mayor and helped to construct the civil war fortifications for the town) --Jcleckie (talk) 22:58, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

@Jcleckie: Then you need to expand the article to make that clear and cite reliable sources that show his importance. —C.Fred (talk) 23:00, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

However, I can verify that he was mayor of Barnstaple, and that's certainly enough of an assertion to prevent speedy deletion. —C.Fred (talk) 23:14, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Jcleckie You have to get more reliable sources for improving this article... SA 13 Bro (talk) 01:07, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Gilbert Paige's parentage

Hello Lobsterthermidor! While working on something else, I've found a document that (I think) sorts out the question of Gilbert's parentage. If you email me (M.Steggle at shu.ac.uk) will be happy to send you a scan. Matt — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.52.86.206 (talk) 13:29, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Suggestion for further sourcing

Following copied here from talk page of Lobsterthermidor:

Hello Lobsterthermidor! While working on something else, I've found a document that (I think) sorts out the question of Gilbert's parentage. If you email me (M.Steggle at shu.ac.uk) will be happy to send you a scan. Matt — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.52.86.206 (talk) 13:31, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, please feel free to contribute the information to the article yourself, make sure you add a reference to the source! If you do not wish to do this, please discuss your findings with me here. It would be a useful addition to the article.Lobsterthermidor (talk) 11:31, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi! I won't post the scan here since it'd infringe copyright, and I'd prefer not to make the edit myself because it doesn't really fit wikipedia's policy of no original research, but the bit of paper is - National Archives: PCC admon. act bk. 1591, f. 167. This is an entry in the register of the Prerogative Court of Canterbury, dated February 1591. In this, four relatives of William Page "nuper de Plymouth" [until recently of Plymouth] ask for letters of administration to be taken out following his death in order to look after his estate for his four legitimate but under-age children, Gilbert, Job, Matthew, and Mary. This document does not state that Page has been murdered, but the dates and place match with the pamphlet. So it would look as if Gilbert is the son of William Page and, presumably, his previous, non-murderous wife (the pamphlet mentions he is a widower when he marries Eulalia). I haven't found a baptism entry for Gilbert, but Matthew, son of William Page, is baptised at St Andrew's Plymouth on 1 October 1584, and he could be that third child. This is in the context of a bit of ongoing research I'm doing on Page of Plymouth and the texts associated with him. All the best, Matt — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.52.39.53 (talk) 15:18, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Matt! Very interesting, but I think you are correct to state that your deduction, no doubt highly plausible, would not meet WP's rules re OR. Nevertheless I will copy this post to the talkpage of the article, as background or suggestion for further sourcing. I wish you well with your ongoing work! If you do publish something, then perhaps it might qualify for inclusion. Best wishes(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 11:44, 14 December 2016 (UTC))

Clean up

I've removed much irrelevant content(*) and original research from this article. Happy to give details if anyone wishes to discuss.

(*) Relevant policies, guidelines and essays include: WP:IINFO, WP:VNOTSUFF, WP:OFFTOPIC, WP:HTRIV, WP:Out of scope, WP:Relevance, WP:COATRACK. What a rule-based organisation we are!  —SMALLJIM  10:56, 22 May 2020 (UTC)