Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Watters (soldier)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. RL0919 (talk) 22:30, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

George Watters (soldier)

[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

George Watters (soldier) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't meet WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Has been in CAT:NN for 12 years now. Boleyn (talk) 18:44, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:19, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:19, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:19, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You were the one arguing that every run of the mill Ace was notable regardless of sources. If you didn't write it, your first response to anything on WP is to delete it. Jamesallain85 (talk) 23:03, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing "run of the mill" about being an ace. There are fewer aces that there are Brigadistas. No my first response is not to delete, it is to look at the sources and see if they establish notability, which in this case they don't. My pages are always reliably sourced from the moment I create them, something you and other users would do well to follow. Mztourist (talk) 03:14, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There are more than 1000 British aces from World War I alone. If you count all of the aces for each country that is an automatic pass for notability for thousands upon thousands of people. Which is fine in my opinion, what bothers me is that you set a double standard for other articles such as this one, which has multiple sources and significant coverage. However, he has more significant coverage and is more notable than many of the aces which get an automatic pass. You are correct, being a Brigadista in itself isn't notable. However, he is one of the few Brigadistas that as provided insight to the Spanish Civil War and is often referenced when Brigadistas are discussed, which is notable. It's almost like you have a bias against everything you didn't have a hand in creating, and you haven't always reliably resourced your pages. That was the issue I had with John B. Selby, it was started with a single source but you sternly fought to keep it. I had an easier time finding coverage for George Watters than I did Selby. Jamesallain85 (talk) 20:56, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The vast majority of those aces each has a page, because they meet WP:BASIC. Whereas for this guy we have a dearth of sources. I don't know if Scottish newspapers are short of stories, but there was practically nothing written about him previously and he certainly is not "often referenced when Brigadistas are discussed". There are numerous books about the Spanish Civil War, if he was "often referenced" then he would feature in some of them. The only bias I have is against pages that don't meet BASIC. Your Selby and Jacobson nominations were simple REVENGE. Mztourist (talk) 03:13, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm yes, why would major Scottish papers write about Scots? Especially after the publication of a book about Scottish contributions to the world stage? Or the announcement of a Scottish play about the contributions of Scots to the world stage? Especially about a time when fascism by major global players in Europe was on the rise, but what relevance would that have today? Truly baffling CiphriusKane (talk) 02:49, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing contemporary was written about him, a few Scottish newspapers recently writing about a "local hero" doesn't establish notability. Mztourist (talk) 02:56, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If I may ask, why nae? Is he only considered notable if English papers write about him then? Because the repeat attempts to dismiss the sources for being Scottish sure feels like that CiphriusKane (talk) 03:01, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing pro-English or anti-Scottish about it. I oppose all these pages based on a few recent nostalgic stories about "locals heros" in the local newspapers as a basis for notability. If he was truly notable there would be contemporary sourcing or significant coverage in books. Mztourist (talk) 05:49, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Except ye're calling Dundee and Glasgow local to Prestonpans, and have repeatedly claimed the sources are irrelevant for being Scottish. This indicates either an ignorance of Scottish geography or a disregard for Scottish sources. The East Lothian Courier is local. The Deeside Piper is local. Calling the Herald (based in Glasgow, nae East Lothian or Edinburgh) and the Sunday Post (based in Dundee, nae East Lothian or Edinburgh) "local" frankly seems like ignorance at best, and an attempt to diminish or disregard Scots sources at worst CiphriusKane (talk) 06:36, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
By "local" I meant of interest in parts of Scotland only. I have no interest in the microanalysis of Scotland or its newspapers. You seem determined to take offense or call racism and I'm not interested in that either Mztourist (talk) 07:29, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, I'm questioning why ye seem determined to diminish/dismiss the sources for being "Scottish papers" and claiming that there is zero reason to be interested in him, even though in 2019 he was the subject of a play. Let me repeat that, he was the subject of a play which was reviewed by the likes of The Guardian and The Times, and which was performed in the New Diorama Theatre in London and Traverse Theatre in Edinburgh. The play was performed as far away as Inverness and Wick (which is on the opposite end of Scotland from Prestonpans). So, with all due respect, yer claims about "local heroes", "slow news days" and "of interest in parts of Scotland only" is frankly horseshite CiphriusKane (talk) 15:51, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have explained already that those stories in minor papers of a local hero don't meet BASIC. In relation to the play we have no way of determining how much is factual and how much is artistic license. The Guardian and Times reviews are RS for the play (if it has a page), not for him other than to say that a character based on him was featured in a play. And saying "with all due respect" before calling my comments "horseshite" doesn't mean its not a personal attack. Mztourist (talk) 17:20, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And here we go again with the factually incorrect arguments. The Herald is the world's oldest national daily, and the Sunday Post once had the highest per capita readership penetration paper in the world. They are only "local" and "minor" if ye consider Scotland to be a community council. Also I didna claim that the play reviews lended notability to Watters, just that yer repeated argument that Scotland should be ignoring Watters is fallacious. So tell me, seeing as Scotland's oldest national daily and one of Scotland's largest Sundays are considered to be too "minor", what would a suitable RS look like? Because based on yer arguments, anything Scotland produces is incapable of determining notability CiphriusKane (talk) 02:44, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As I said I have no interest in the microanalysis of Scotland or its newspapers, the fact that the Herald is the world's oldest national daily and the Sunday Post once having the highest per capita readership are both incredibly granular claims of their importance and irrelevant. Both stories were written as a result of the play, not due to Watters actually being contemporarily notable. We have too many of these pages about non-notable, long-dead people being given some minor exposure then a handful of newspaper articles are written about them and then suddenly they're deemed notable Mztourist (talk) 03:16, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I look forward to the time when we have more articles on notable people and I see no reason to place some block on those about volunteers in the Spanish Civil War. Are there particular biographies that should be excluded? The present article is weakly referenced. The book referred to Gray, Daniel (2013). Homage to Caledonia: Scotland and the Spanish Civil War. Luath Press Limited. ISBN 978-1-909912-12-0. refers to Watters on 11 pages. In addition to the references suggested by Curbon7, an article in the National[4] refers to a book Voices of the Spanish Civil War, edited by Ian MacDougall, but I haven't been able to track this down. In this case I wonder whether it might be better to have an article 549: Scots of the Spanish Civil War and cover the main participants in this way. Clearly, more work needs to be done here. Thincat (talk) 09:07, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We already have numerous articles on people who are actually notable. What we have here is an article about a nobody who's only claim to fame was being part of a notable organisation. The sources provided by Curbon7 are mentions in two Scottish newspapers, while grahamstevenson.me.uk doesn't appear to be a reliable source. Mztourist (talk) 10:42, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Two nationwide Scottish papers and a local Scottish paper, all of which are several paragraphs of biography. I've removed the Stevenson source as it looks like a WordPress blog CiphriusKane (talk) CiphriusKane (talk) 12:21, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, it is WP:SPS, his wikipage says that he's a historian, but I don't see anything to support that. What books has he written? He seems to have co-authored one book. So does that make him an expert? Mztourist (talk) 02:59, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Is in numerous newspaper articles and even had is accounts recorded in Voices from the Spanish Civil War. Jamesallain85 (talk) 23:03, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I do hope those voting keep will put some effort into improving the article. Just saying...Intothatdarkness 01:05, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've incorporated the two additional sources found by Curbon7 into the article and rewritten it to remove all the quotes. There's probably some newspaper articles out there given Watters's political activism, but given how it happened in pre-internet times they're probably nae online CiphriusKane (talk) 12:09, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. He's an important figure in the context of Scotland's recent history. I'm a descendant. I've got a copy of the book mentioned by Thincat, which has several pages devoted to George Watters, including an anecdote about his arrest for disrupting the infamous William (lord HawHaw) Joyce rally at the Usher Hall in Edinburgh. I'll dig it out and add to the article to expand it beyond GW's service in the International Brigades. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gusset (talk • contribs)
  • Keep - Subject of a play that had reviews in The Times, the Guardian and The Scotsman, as well as being mentioned in at least three books about Scots in the Spanish Civil War. Claims that Watters is relevant to only a part of Scotland despite being mentioned in national level newspapers are quite questionable CiphriusKane (talk) 16:07, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I think there has clearly been enough coverage in the media in recent years, combined with play mentioned above, to show notability. Dunarc (talk) 22:55, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The play may be notable and worthy of a page, but he clearly isn't as there was minimal contemporary information about him. Mztourist (talk) 04:04, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point, but the amount of contemporary coverage could be countered with the argument that there are plenty of examples of people whose works/actions only really attracted attention long after their achievements. However, I would note that the British Newspaper Archive would seem to point to his disruption of the Mosley meeting in 1936 and subsequent court case being reported in newspapers across Scotland, and even one in Northern Ireland. That said perhaps if deletion is decided upon then some of the material about his life could go in an article about the play? Dunarc (talk) 19:08, 9 September 2021 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/George_Watters_(soldier)&oldid=1043395869"