Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dean, Smith & Grace


 * 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:37, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Dean, Smith &amp; Grace
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

The article had no substance. The body of the article has just two sentences. The second sentence refers entirely to an existing company and points to its website. There are just three referenced sources, one of which is a first-class secondary source, one of which points to a short, on-line, anecdotal article; and the other points to a page that largely advertises the new owners’ services. There are no other extant secondary sources, and there are very few readily available primary sources. It is unlikely, therefore, that the article can be made meaningful. This situation suggests that any expansion of the article would be largely anecdotal. Weiterbewegung (talk) 13:05, 19 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep It's a stub article but not spammy in style. There is enough substance to identify the subject, which is a long established and still operating company, albeit in the non-glamorous field of machine tools. This nomination is by the creator and main editor of the article, and assorted problems have been successfully dealt with by the creator. I say leave it up and running and if the creator has no more to add, others will. (I know little about lathes, but supplied the creator with a bit of info. If I could find it, others will find more.) I would thank Weiterbewegung for putting up this article about a company that has resisted any temptation to go trendy and become Lathes'R'Us or something similar. Come on, all you who know your CNCs from your turrets - here's your Christmas challenge... Peridon (talk) 13:33, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep As when I declined the speedy, there is no spam or even vaguely promotional material. Just having a company as the subject of an article does not qualify as spam/promotional material. I agree with Peridon that there is chance of expansion, and I wonder if any experts could be recruited from WikiProjects. I'll have a nose around and see who I can track down... Acather96 (talk) 13:57, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article seems neutral in style, and establishes slight but sufficient historical significance to get to long term historical notability. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:32, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 10:06, 23 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - No matter how well it doesn't fail the CSD criteria (which seems to be the focus of most of the above comments) it doesn't also seem to satisfy any of the notability criteria. I might add that the notability criteria finding is an affirmative burden... not one for the nominator here. Shadowjams (talk) 10:39, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. While this article is never going to graduate to WP:FA it is adequately sourced, non-promotional and a net loss if it were deleted. Kim Dent-Brown   (Talk)  12:28, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Now the picture has been deleted, it looks even more stupid than before. Do you still want to keep it? None of you will ever be able to add to it.Weiterbewegung (talk) 11:38, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * What makes you so confident that nobody will be able to expand this? Have you checked all of these 532 books to make sure that there's nothing in them that could be used in our article? Phil Bridger (talk) 12:32, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Help yourself.Weiterbewegung (talk) 12:39, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I like a challenge. I have added several good references to the article, including one from an American author who describes this firm as the "Rolls Royce of lathes" and also a reference to Herbert Smith, the aircraft designer who was responsible for designs such as the Sopwith Pup, Triplane, Camel, and Snipe and who worked for the firm in the years before the First World War. Still not WP:FA of course, but surely a Keep now? Kim Dent-Brown   (Talk)  23:31, 27 December 2010 (UTC)


 * 'Keep Something funny going on here. It would appear that Weiterbewegung is a new editor whose first experiences have unfortunately been rather WP:BITEY and so they're now off on a suicide run to take down any content that they've previously created. Whilst their unhappiness with the usual WP user experience is understandable, this sort of reaction weakens the entire project and must never be seen as acceptable.
 * As to the deletion request here, then it's a duff nomination on quite the wrong grounds. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:18, 27 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Is someone getting a bit personal? 'off on a suicide run' so lets all just oppose anything and everything proposed? What poor, petty stuff this is, and what poor, petty and anecdotal stuff passes for history on this place.Weiterbewegung (talk) 07:07, 28 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Feel free to explain your actions otherwise.
 * Your actions at John Musgrave & Sons might appear related too. At one moment you're expanding the article considerably, at the next you're then claiming that it's a serious copyvio.
 * Incidentally, would you like to (please, it's a sincere question) state whether you're 'Maurice J. Halton', the claimed author of the Musgrave content? If this isn't yours, then it shouldn't have been used (and is indeed a copyvio). If it is yours, and you're the copyright holder, then you've (by posting it) licensed it to WP under GFDL (read the edit notice on every page!) and licensing has to be irrevocable, otherwise the whole project would be under permanent threat. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:45, 28 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Anonymity? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Weiterbewegung (talk • contribs) 12:04, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I would have to recognise that you have the WP editor's general right to anonymity. However this does make things rather unclear, and if you were willing to waive it (many editors do, I have for one) then it would become immediately clearer. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:24, 28 December 2010 (UTC)


 * 1. Questions regarding identity are improper and will be ignored. 2. The assertion that one Herbert Smith who was, anecdotally, an aircraft designer and who, it is claimed, worked for Dean, Smith and Grace 'in the years before the First World War' (which years?) is unsubstantiated. Citing Air Pictorial (1975) - Journal of the Air League of the British Empire, vol. 37, p. 228 is not a proper secondary historical source unless the identity of the publisher and the location of the archive in which it can be viewed are also revealed. Moreover, there are other published sources on Herbert Smith that make no mention of any involvement with DSG. I dare say that there were, and are, quite a few 'Herbert Smiths about.Weiterbewegung (talk) 16:58, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Like I said, feel free to explain your actions otherwise.
 * There are at least three articles involved (also Rothwell Cars). In two of them, maybe more, you've posted academic work by 'Maurice J. Halton', then later claimed your own actions to be a copyvio. As the implications of this are clearly quite different depending on whether you're the copyright holder (assumed to be MJH), it would obviously be a helpful action to the project to clear this up. Without doing so, we can't tell which, but you've either committed a number of significant copyvios yourself and then acted as if they're nothing to do with you (this is still forgivable, as it's recognised to be a complex issue for new editors) or else you have released this content under an irrevocable licence, then attempted to renege on it by denying your identity since. That's a much more serious and harmful action. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:08, 28 December 2010 (UTC)


 * If you wish to discuss my proposal to delete the article on Dean, Smith and Grace, please respond to my observations (or not). What part of 'questions regarding identity are improper and will be ignored' is perplexing you? Weiterbewegung (talk) 17:59, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * (to Weiterbewegung) Now you're getting silly. Who do you think is the publisher of a journal identified as Air Pictorial — Journal of the Air League of the British Empire if not the Air League of the British Empire? It's even linked in the citation in the article. If you want to check it you can try one of these libraries. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:32, 28 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you should have a look at Assume good faith? Citing a document requires its location. If its online that means its ful url. Not on line, the address of the building, the room, the shelf, the box. Clear now? Weiterbewegung (talk) 19:06, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The source is here. But I think this discussion is for the article talk page, not an AfD. Have written more fully there. Kim Dent-Brown   (Talk)  19:11, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Free lessons in historical research are not something I offer. You are unable to produce the full sentence, let alone the full citation, and the source you offer is a non-scholarly journal article written in over sixty years after the event. This is by no means a primary source and it is highly unlikely to be a reasonably accurate secondary source. To attempt the assertion that ‘This exactly matches the text from the (1960) source’ shows the depth of your naiveté and demonstrates the (low) level of historical narrative the Wikipedia are prepared to tolerate. If you do indeed ‘think we can be safe in the knowledge that there is only one Herbert, and this is he’, do not include me among the ‘we’.Weiterbewegung (talk) 19:35, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * (to Weiterbewegung) No, a citation does not require "the address of the building, the room, the shelf, the box". Wherever did you get that idea? (to Kim Dent-Brown) This discussion, insofar as it impacts the issue of whether a source contributes to notability, belongs right here where the decision about keeping or deleting will be made. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:37, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Phil, I take your note to me up to a point. What I didn't want to happen was for the discussion to be lost when this AfD is closed as a Keep. Thus I've put it at the article talk page, not wanting to clutter here too much. However, if tou think it's germane then what I wrote (and what provoked Weiterbewegung above) is the following:
 * I think the confirmation that there is just one Herbert is in the fascinating article from Flight linked above. It contains these words: Herbert Smith took a Diploma in Engineering at the Bradford Technical College, then spent three years in a workshop and one year in a drawing office before joining the Bristol Aeroplane Company as a draughtsman. He transferred to the Sopwith Company in March 1914, also as a draughtsman, and was there until their liquidation in October 1920.
 * This exactly matches the text from the source at the Air Pictorial journal. This says: ....joining Dean, Smith & Grace of Keighley, a firm making machine tools who are still very much in business today. From there he sought design and drawing office experiencewith Smith, Major & Stephens who manufactured lifts in Northampton. Having acquired a sound basic training in various aspects of mechanical engineering, Herbert then became involved in the world of aircraft manufacture.
 * So I think we can be safe in the knowledge that there is only one Herbert, and this is he! Kim Dent-Brown   (Talk)  19:44, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you should both (or are there now three of you), have a look at Assume good faith? Firstly. the reason why citing a document requires its location: if its online that means its ful url, and if its not on line, the address of the building, the room, the shelf, the box is simple. If it's not available to provide verification, its probably bogus. Otherwise knowledge would be merely heresay, anacdote and allegory. Anyone can just make stuff up. Clear NOW? As I wrote before, the DSG article is without substance. Your two sources cannot triangulate (think about it). Moreover, the reliable source is clear that sources should be as scholarly as possible. A partial sentence in a magazine may, perhaps, support something more solid, but it can't be seized upon on its own simply because it’s what you wanted to find. Unfortunately, you persist in your fallacious assertions that are clearly based only upon ‘what you believe to be’, and not what is the nearest to the truth that we can get. Here endeth this complete waste of time. Weiterbewegung (talk) 20:36, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Like all forms of publishing, we make the (rebuttable) assumption of good faith in our authors. The rule is not that sources should be as scholarly as possible, but as practical. We're not an archival research publication. When someone donates material, we assume they have a right to it unless there are indications otherwise. How closely we look, depends of the likelihood of the situation. When someone says a print citation is on a given page of a given journal, I have once in a while thought  necessarily to check the facts of publication, but we do not routinely assume the quotation is forged, nor do I routinely ask people where they were physically sitting when they read it, or on what shelf of the library they found it. Potential verifiability is all that is necessary, not a legal chain of evidence.  People have the right to challenge, but they are expected to provide an adequate reason.  If I want to challenge something, I look first, and then complain if I have looked properly and do not find it.     DGG ( talk ) 05:12, 29 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Ah, the US cavalry is it? Predictably hyperbolic in style and typically allegorical in content, DGG’s admonishment purports to contend, in essence, that there is a version of truth, or at least of reasonably verifiable 'fact', that can be arrived at through a consensus of Wikipedia ‘gurus’. One wonders whether he has ever heard of Marc Bloch; although it’s perhaps to be expected that Henry Ford’s opinion of history has become the standard where he lives. There have been times when most people believed that the earth was flat, and that it was at the centre of the universe. That these fallacies were considered factual by the ‘establishment’ and sometimes brutally enforced, did not make them true. Still, now that the Yanks are here - and me being a mere cowardly Englishman (replete with crooked teeth) - I surrender.Weiterbewegung (talk) 14:29, 29 December 2010 (UTC)


 * If you liked it so far, you'll love WP:V. Really, take a read of it - the Wikiview that Verifiability does trump Truth.
 * Funny thing is, that it actually makes sense to work this way (see WP:IMPERFECT). We have a big task and it's open-ended. In particular, there's no "publication" milestone. To get the most good into the most articles, with an editorial team of poorly herded cats, the compromise of choosing verifiability over truth does indeed give a better average result. A deeply average result perhaps, but it's better than viewpoint ping-pong - something that's tolerable in academia because it's done by distinct streams of publication with distinct publications; so that the author's viewpoints don't need to overlap, rather than the collaborative and un-overseen nature of work here. The problem here only becomes really harmful when the literal-minded and basically not too smart start to mistake Googling for text matches with doing research.
 * Have we heard of Marc Bloch? Of course, we're just not so Annale about it. Incidentally, as a qualified engineering historian, Coanda-1910 might be interesting to you. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:46, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You really do have a low opinion of us, don't you? 'Annale' indeed. Should I register that as a personal attack? Yes, I think I shall.Weiterbewegung (talk) 15:28, 29 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment Can we try to keep this discussion on track please? Globbet (talk) 21:59, 29 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep DSG is a historically significant British machine tool manufacturer (with a world class reputation). The article is a stub at present and I see no reason why it could not be expanded to a sufficient academic standard. Globbet (talk) 21:59, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 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.