Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Jones (artilleryman)

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. WP:HEY factors in here. (non-admin closure) Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 02:27, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Jones (artilleryman)

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

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

Article fails WP:N. There is a lack of WP:BESTSOURCES as well. The articles sources rely on extracts from a couple of published books and from a website that wouldn't count as WP:RS. Angryskies (talk) 22:34, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:43, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:43, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The sources used are not WP:RS Jenyire2 05:37, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:07, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has coverage in RS. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:09, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks SIGCOV in multiple RS to meet WP:GNG. Three of the four sources provided are by the same author and of questionable reliability. Doesn't meet WP:NAUTHOR either. Mztourist (talk) 07:43, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Hawkeye7. Jenyire2, what is your reason for saying there are no WP:RS sources? The entry in the Who's who in Gay and Lesbian History is a reference book entry devoted to him, and fairly extended. I found the three book references in 15 minutes and added them. Feel free to add more and to build the entry out. Dsp13 (talk) 09:38, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

One short entry in the Who's who in Gay and Lesbian History and then 2 other stories all by the same author and a short reference to his figure skating book doesn't amount to SIGCOV in multiple RS. Mztourist (talk) 04:01, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Spent another minute looking, and found a thesis on his trial. Added. (Do feel free to add references yourself, Mztourist.) Dsp13 (talk) 11:08, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There was significant coverage of his trial, conviction, royal pardon and exile in contemporary newspapers; also his role in the history of figure skating Piecesofuk (talk) 09:18, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Then add them. Mztourist (talk) 09:28, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Added two contemporary newspaper references and link to Old Bailey trial transcription Piecesofuk (talk) 05:38, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It was nice and helpful for you to add them. But just so you know - when Mz tells you to do that, it's not as though your adding them (or not adding them) affects this afd. It is sufficient for purposes of the afd for you to have identified them here. --2603:7000:2143:8500:E159:96EA:4544:1DB2 (talk) 09:35, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets GNG. I am not familiar with a rule that requires that we only consider one RS per author. Is that a real rule, or a fake rule? Has significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, as discussed above. 2603:7000:2143:8500:E159:96EA:4544:1DB2 (talk) 03:00, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Three sources all by the same author indicates an author with a fixation on the subject and should be viewed accordingly, it is not the same as three separate sources. Mztourist (talk) 03:18, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please clarify where in wp policy this is stated? Or if it is not policy, is this perhaps a non-wp-policy personal view, that should be weighed accordingly? Also, why do you presume that the mental state of one who writes three articles on a subject is one of "a fixation?" Freud, I believe, wrote a number of books on the same subject - and whether or not he had a fixation (I don't see how we would determine it from that), I am unclear what wp policy would lead us to not view them as significant .. just because he wrote three or more. Thank you. 2603:7000:2143:8500:E159:96EA:4544:1DB2 (talk) 03:51, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not everything has a policy, its obvious that three sources by the same author (only one of which is a book) are not the same as three sources by separate authors. Freud is a ridiculous comparison, Rictor Norton is described as a specialist on gay history so for him early gays will be "a fixation". Create an account, I am tired of debating with your changing IPs. Mztourist (talk) 04:37, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Inasmuch as this is a discussion in which policy is important, thank you for clarifying that it is not a wp policy, but just your personal opinion. I have many opinions of my own, but I don't think they would matter much here. Feel free to assume that the IP discussions here have all been the IP who voted keep above. Best wishes on getting some rest. 2603:7000:2143:8500:E159:96EA:4544:1DB2 (talk) 06:27, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The Hines book listed in the References section has several pages about Jones' book, which was the first published book about figure skating. Jones describes the spiral, an early figure skating element. There also this source from Smithsonian Magazine: [1]. Yes, it needs work, but there are enough sources out there to warrant the article's continuing existence. Keep the verification tag. I've been working on figure skating articles the past few years; I'll put this article on my watchlist and promise to eventually get to it. Wow, imagine: a bio about a gay figure skater that needs improvement. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 06:32, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. 2603:7000:2143:8500:E159:96EA:4544:1DB2 (talk) 04:10, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. 2603:7000:2143:8500:E159:96EA:4544:1DB2 (talk) 04:10, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Plenty of reliable sources now. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:32, 11 February 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.