Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Albert William Tweedy, Jr.

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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 04:37, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Albert William Tweedy, Jr.

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Entire article relies on the verification provided by only one source, a DANFA entry on "Tweedy". In fact, the article is almost literally one huge quote from the DANFA entry; some abbreviations were extended (i.e. Mass. to Massachusetts), but beyond that the DANFA entry was transcribed word-for-word into the article. All of my attempts to find additional information or other sources on this guy failed; any other statements I could find on him were only more direct transcriptions of the DANFA entry on the ship that was named after him. To summarize: lack of any sources beyond the DANFA entry, direct transcription of the DANFA entry. Cervantes de Leon (talk) 01:08, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —AustralianRupert (talk) 05:45, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Kommentar: I'm not really sure of this fact, but would the fact that a warship was named after this fellow make him notable (coupled with the Navy Cross)? — AustralianRupert (talk) 05:49, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Think about it this way: would it cause someone to want to look him up? Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:18, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I do know that some of the folks at WikiProject Ships have created biographies on individuals who are/were the namesakes of ships, using the public domain Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships as thier main/only ref. I agree with Rupert above that notability is not an issue. I have found a ref and added it; but even had I not, I'm not concerned about having just one reliable ref because the individual is not subject to BLP. bahamut0013^words _deeds 13:48, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (Delete) My concern with the article is less its notability and more its lack of sources. Yes, while the DANFA entry is reliable, this Wikipedia article is a word-for-word copy of it. Clearly that indicates that something's off per WP:NOTREPOSITORY (see the third element in the list). Wikipedia is not a place for complete copies of public domain resources. Even if you were to paraphrase from the DANFA entry, I still don't see how anyone could write an article using only one public domain source (the second source added by Bahamut0013 is just a confirmation of his receiving the Navy Cross) that wouldn't just be a repeat of the public domain text and thus a violation of policy. Cervantes de Leon (talk) 14:20, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That point is really meant in regard to including the entirety of a primary source - something relating to the article, or indeed the subject of the article. It doesn't seem unreasonable to include a specific article in its entirety from a public-domain resource, when it covers pretty much the same material as we would write in an article based on that article, and it's already an encyclopedia article in form. Compare, for example, our twelve thousand articles heavily drawn from Britannica, and many others.
But even if it is bad, is it worth deleting? We could, for example, remove the verbatim DANFS text and have a couple of summary sentences which were sourced to it; that would be a perfectly valid stub. This seems to be a dispute about what the textual content of the article should be, not whether or not there should be an article to begin with, and I don't think AFD is the appropriate mechanism for trying to resolve that. Shimgray | talk | 01:20, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If notability is not an issue, the article should be kept.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:09, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
KeepI admit that it is bad form to copy and paste large pieces of text into WP articles, even from sites such as this that are freely distributable but I would argue that the subject is of sufficient notability and can be easily cleaned up.--Kumioko (talk) 01:35, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I already added some info and a couple of additional references. --Kumioko (talk) 02:01, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The DANFA is an absolutely reliable source, and a free one too, and it can form the basis of the article. It's better to modify it a little, for a Wikipedia article does not necessarily want all the detail it gives, but even if it is just used as it, it still meets the requirements for WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:N. I tried to indicate this when I removed the prod, but it was still brought here.

(The old EB is a little different, for using it intact in articles was in my opinion a very bad mistake from the start, an ill-thought-out attempt to get some respectable amount of content in on traditional subjects, as it was out of date for everything it covered, and no longer reliable. We're slowly working through the articles with more modern sources. Myself, I think its best used to indicate what the Anglo-american attitude was towards the subject a century ago. The Navy compilation, on the other han dm, is till reliable--though supplementing it will never hurt.) ` DGG ( talk ) 03:15, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As per the above. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:18, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As a recipient of the Navy Cross and with a ship named after him he more than meets notability requirements. The article will improve over time.--Looper5920 (talk) 03:44, 8 March 2010 (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.