Talk:Paul St George

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool as Stub-class because it uses a stub template. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

Merge Proposal

I think that since the Alexander Stanhope St George article is being considered for deletion, it might be better to just allocate any unrepresented information here (Paul St George) under its own section or within the existing article itself due to reports that Alexander Stanhope St George is an elaborate creation of Paul St George. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darthjarek (talk • contribs) 10:12, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We just had a "no consensus" result on the AfD which, frankly, surprised me a bit. I we're mostly of a similar mind that whatever the state of hoaxing and art projects, this particular fictitious character (the artist's supposed great grandfather) does not have independent notability and would best be explained in a short section on the artist or art project. A few people objected more strenuously that we shouldn't reward a Wikipedia hoax by keeping any of the material at all. I would say that if we can reach quick agreement on a merge here and just do it, we can head off any move for a deletion review or a second Afd given that most people can probably agree at least that the article about the great grandfather really should not be here. I think that's a long way of saying agreed. Wikidemo (talk) 00:36, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree too. Let's merge the ASSG material here, given that Paul St. George claimed he was relative and the 'hoax' was/is part of his most well-known installation to date. Then redirect the ASSG page here. (It currently re-directs to telescope) Once it's done, I would also remove the link to it currently in the Telectroscope article since there is already a link in the article to Paul St George Voceditenore (talk) 06:45, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ooops. I see that someone has already redirected ASSG to Telectroscope. That's OK too. But I've now delinked his name in the article to avoid a circular redirect. Voceditenore (talk) 06:52, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the redirect to Telectroscope is more sensible because ASSG is an aspect of the artist's particular artwork, not his biography (the "great-grandfather" thing is totally fictional). Telectroscope is the best page because it is the one that actually discusses the artwork.--Pharos (talk) 15:24, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes on second thought, I think re-directing to Telectroscope is better. Voceditenore (talk) 17:16, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]