Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Atkins (Royal Navy officer)


 * 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 redirect to HMS Defence (1763). Going down with his ship, again.  Sandstein  12:03, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

David Atkins (Royal Navy officer)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Fails WP:GNG. Seems to be an unlucky, but normal ship captain. Lettlerhello • contribs 16:46, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lettlerhello • contribs 16:46, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lettlerhello • contribs 16:46, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Lettlerhello • contribs 16:46, 21 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep Passes WP:GNG. There's a nice account of them here. Andrew🐉(talk) 23:53, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * That's very clearly not an RS. Mztourist (talk) 03:04, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The source summarises its extensive bibliography and so seems fine. My !vote stands. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:55, 1 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Redirect to HMS Defence (1763) the ship that he captained when it was lost. He lacks SIGCOV in multiple RS necessary for WP:GNG. Coverage is largely WP:1E of the loss of the Defence. Mztourist (talk) 03:04, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Passes WP:GNG. 7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 20:28, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Atkins is a blog and the two books you have added aren't visible online. Mztourist (talk) 04:19, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * They were visible to me. The Clowes/Mahan books is available on line for free in its entirety.  It was published in 1900.  And even if they aren't visible to you, so what's your point?  7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 12:24, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * My point is that Users can't assess the sources if they can't see what they say. Using another computer I can see a preview of Clowes/Mahan and all it seems to say is "and Defence, Captain David Atkins were ordered to attend her.." which just proves that Atkins was the Captain of the Defence and gives no other details, hardly SIGCOV in multiple RS necessary to meet GNG and just confirms the WP:1E nature and why this should redirect to the ship. Mztourist (talk) 12:43, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Adkins Bates is both a book  and an associated webpage. Not a non-WP:RS blog.  You were complaining that you couldn't see the contents of the other books.  You get to see a lot of content in this source. 7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 13:38, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * But the book's subject is Gower not Atkins who gets listed under "associated people" (because he served under Gower) in what looks like an appendix; is it Significant coverage? Adding more sources to the article that say the same thing, when the thing is just "Atkins was captain of the Defence when it ran aground, and he died" is not SigCov. GraemeLeggett (talk) 15:50, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Exactly right. Its not clear that the Atkins information is even contained in the book. Meanwhile 7&6=thirteen you have added a couple more blogs which also aren't RS. Mztourist (talk) 16:02, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The Naval Chronicle is a contemporary journal, (archive.org seems to have many of the volumes (eg here is one of the sailors accounts of the loss of Defence at the end of Vol 28, but I can't find Atkins elsewhere in the that volume, he may be in others.) GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:28, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Update: Google books had Volume 27, January-July 1812 p44 has a brief mention of the loss of the St George and Defence. GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:38, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Update to update Archive.org delivers a better scanned/index of Vol 27 with Atkins appearing in the search but still no bio.GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:43, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * As noted on the Article Talk Page the Ian M Bates reference is not a Reliable Source as it is a blog by one of the authors of Champion of the Quarterdeck: Admiral Sir Erasmus Gower (1742-1814) providing information not included in the book and so has not been subject to any editorial review. Mztourist (talk) 17:05, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

A book and an explanatory website are perfectly reliable sources. Lack of a page number is not disqualifying. They should be read in tandem. Being discussed on the article talk page. I think the sourcing question is independent of this AFD discussion, and I am not suggesting it is outcome determinative at all. <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 17:22, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Copying this over from the Talk Page: The book is presumed to be reliable, the website isn't as it hasn't undergone any editorial review even if it was created by one of the book's authors. Ian M. Bates the webpage owner (not David Bates as you claim in the book reference) states "My draft manuscript contained an Appendix running to over 25,000 words, revealing many little-known facts about Gower's associates. This was considered too long for publication but it referred to numerous officers whose later careers showed Gower's influence and support. As the lives of many of these officers are little known today, rather than delete this data, I offer it here for the benefit of readers of the book and for the wider naval history community." So no editorial review, so its just a blog and cannot be regarded as a Reliable Source. Mztourist (talk) 04:02, 27 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Redirect (I'd say merge too - if there was anything to merge) to HMS Defence. I'm not seeing "Significant coverage" and as WP:STUB says "If a stub has little verifiable information...it may be deleted or be merged into another relevant article.". I'd say this was pretty close to "Delete"- what is he known for apart from losing a ship and nigh on 600 crew - but I'm feeling generous today. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:49, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Redirect to HMS Defence, per GraemeLeggett the cited sources completely lack SIGCOV. Cavalryman (talk) 13:30, 25 February 2021 (UTC).
 * Redirect to HMS Defence as Atkins lacks SIGCOV on his own. Intothatdarkness 16:53, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Point of information - I think standing consensus is that an established expert (such as an author with a peer-reviewed published book) can have their self-published (i.e. blog) material in the related field treated as reliable. Niehorster's website is often used for Yugoslav ships in this way. -Indy beetle (talk) 07:13, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
 * In this case, having assumed it's reliable as a source, would you say it counts as a second different piece of coverage that counts towards the SIGCOV threshold or lump it together as something like an e-version of the book, or appendix to the book? GraemeLeggett (talk) 08:32, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd consider it a companion to the book for notability purposes. -Indy beetle (talk) 19:00, 27 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment Article is not what it was when nominated for deletion. WP:HEY.   WP:GNG.  WP:Preserve.  <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 14:25, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 15:43, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Most of the article's content comes from just one source, the only thing that is well sourced - for some reason with six citations - is him dying when the Defence goes aground. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:39, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Agreed all the detail now comes from Bates' webpage, while the one event that he is known for is extensively sourced. Still fails GNG. Mztourist (talk) 03:07, 2 March 2021 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.