Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George W. Blunt, No. 11


 * 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. This is a keep and a possible merge can be discussed on the talkpage. Tone 07:46, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

George W. Blunt, No. 11

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The article was originally nominated for deletion for copyvio. The article creator whose also the copyright holder of the source did an OTRS release but Wikipedia is not a platform for publishing self-published contents. WP:NOTWEBHOST, WP:NTEMP. There doesn't appear to be anytime in the modern times that even reference this. https://issuu.com/greghenderson/docs/hendersonfamilytree_v9c_greg_review - p 28-29. Graywalls (talk) 23:40, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 23:40, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 23:40, 22 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Merge and redirect into USS_G._W._Blunt_(1861) created on November 2007, which I wasn't aware these were closely related at the time I AfD'd. Graywalls (talk) 06:42, 29 August 2020 (UTC) ‎


 * Keep. My apologies but I don't understand the argument about "self-published contents." Every article on Wikipedia is self-published in the sense that it was written by the contributors. The fact that in this case the content was first published elsewhere seems irrelevant if there is proper attribution and the copyright has been released. A better argument for deletion would be notability, but I think the sources bring the article over the line. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:52, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually two reasons. Wikipedia isn't a repository for webmasters to mirror contents from their own CC-SA-BY released websites. It's a COI when the person creating the website is also the one putting substantial copies from it here. The second reason is the sourcing cited, or what I can locate suggests there's no lasting notability. You voted to keep. Do you believe this sail boat/yacht has lasting notability past the early 20th century? There was some coverage in the 1800s, but otherwise it seems like it's not a WP:SUSTAINED notability. I'm not unable to see anything modern referencing to it as something of significance. Being in paper about wreckage during the era when this boat was still relevant doesn't seem to be of importance in notability. Graywalls (talk) 00:01, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I really don't see the COI issue. If the content belongs on Wikipedia, then it belongs on Wikipedia whether or not it's also published elsewhere. Put differently, there would be no problem if the editor had written the article on Wikipedia and then copied it, with attribution, to his or her own website, so I don't see why it makes a big difference that this time it was done in the other order.
 * As I acknowledged, the notability is a more serious concern. You are obviously right that if we made a list of the most important vessels of the nineteenth century, this boat would not be on it. Put differently, we wouldn't aspire to someday have an article on every nineteenth-century vessel with the same level of importance. Nonetheless, I think there are times when it's helpful to have an article on an typical example of a type of object or a phenomenon, where the information needed to create an article happens to survive. Although this keep rationale is not well-captured in the guidelines, it has come up before and at times has been accepted. The bottom line is that the letter of the rule-book aside, I think our encyclopedia is better for containing this article than it would be without it. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:21, 23 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment The deletion rationale is very muddled. That the material was first published elsewhere is not a concern (as long as copyright is clear), and NTEMP is usually a "keep" argument. If the boat was notable in the 1800s then it's still notable today. pburka (talk) 03:18, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep: Reliable sources, including the New York Daily Times and several published books. — Toughpigs (talk) 03:51, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment perhaps redirect to USS_G._W._Blunt_(1861) which predates this page and the page says this boat became the USS GW Blunt. An essentially identical article. Graywalls (talk) 04:18, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep: Secondary source from Charles Edward Russell's book, From Sandy Hook to 62 talks about the boat as one of only twenty-one New York pilot boats in 1860; the boat was built by the prominent Westervelt & Co. shipyard; and primary sources include lots of historical newspaper reports of how this pilot-boat in particular, was responsible for helping to rescue and save the lives of men that met with disasters at sea.--Greg Henderson (talk) 16:48, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This AfD raises some interesting meta-issues, which I have discussed in an essay, here. I would welcome any comments on its talkpage. My thanks to everyone here for a thought-provoking discussion. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:33, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Obvious merge to the later name USS_G._W._Blunt_(1861) - one boat, two articles? No. I actually agree with Nyb's "typical" rationale, and have used it at Afd (mostly for museum ceramics etc), but it isn't exactly policy. Nor is this the example to make a stand on. Johnbod (talk) 01:43, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * As an updated !vote, I agree that "merge" is now the right outcome here, although I have no preference on which of the two titles should be the main article and which the redirect. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:47, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I suppose we should do as we do with people and choose the final name, if this is not over-ruled by WP:COMMONNAME. Johnbod (talk) 01:51, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I am OK with merge, but please keep George W. Blunt, No. 11 and merge USS G. W. Blunt (1861) into this one because it was a pilot boat that was used by the US Government during the civil war. Another example of a pilot boat being used this way is William Bell, No. 24. Pilot boat George W. Blunt belongs in the list of List of Northeastern U. S. Pilot Boats. Thanks! --Greg Henderson (talk) 14:20, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * You created this article on 2019. The suggested target article has been here since 2007. I remain unpersuaded by this particular WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument until presented with precedent in favor of what you're suggesting, or good reasoning from those without personal connection interest. You also have a personal connection (family ties to pilot Joseph Henderson of this boat) with the pilot that maybe affecting your point of view. As mentioned to you repeatedly, such potential COI should be mentioned in your AfD participation. Graywalls (talk) 15:49, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Graywalls, I understand your concern. I have created many articles on other pilot boats, so not sure I need to add COI on each of these just because there may be a connection to Joseph Henderson. In writing these articles, my goal is a WP:NPOV. In terms of the above, the pilot boat George W. Blunt, No. 11, came first as it was built around 1856. It did not become the USS G. W. Blunt until 1861. Therefore, the mrege should have the name of the pilot boat with the section about Civil War and the transfer into government dispatch boats as USS G. W. Blunt. This would be consistent with other pilot boats used for government service. --Greg Henderson (talk) 16:14, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Various precedents, like HMS Amboyna (1796) suggest the final name is the most appropriate. Perhaps naval identities outrank civil ones too. Johnbod (talk) 16:46, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * However, in this case it was not the final name. After the Federal Government service, the pilot boat returned to service as a pilot boat as reported in primary New York newspapers and ship registration sources, e.g. Record of American and Foreign Shipping, 1877. --Greg Henderson (talk) 16:54, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Before we merge, please take a look at a couple of new citations I have found regarding two George W. Blunt boats. The first George W. Blunt, No 11 was built in New York in 1856 and sold to the government in 1861. The second George W. Blunt was built in Boston in 1861 to take the place of the original George W. Blunt, which was sold to the government during the Civil War and sent South. The two boats shared the same name but had different start and end dates. See the following citations: --Greg Henderson (talk) 21:49, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The first one is just a routine announcement not too unlike so and so of this city crashed their make and model vehicle and died. The second one is primary source of zero contributing factor to notability. Graywalls (talk) 22:06, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Graywalls, the above is about not doing merge because of two boats with same name. In terms of notability, please see Secondary Source, which qualifies for WP:BASIC: Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships. The pilot boat G. W. Blunt was acquired by the Navy in 1861. --Greg Henderson (talk) 23:07, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that there were two boats, but of the article as it is, only the last two sections refer to the one built in 1861? Johnbod (talk) 23:55, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, there are primary and secondary sources (see above) that say the New York pilot boat was sold to the Government in 1861 and the N.Y. Pilots bought a second boat that was built in Boston and used in the pilot boat service. --Greg Henderson (talk) 00:05, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * ok I see this ship was purchased to replace the original ship by the government. So I say merge into the "original ship"'s article is still appropriate. Graywalls (talk) 00:16, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The orginal ship being the G. W. Blunt Pilot Boat that the Governemnt then bought. Add to this, sources that say the pilot boat was sold to the government in 1861: So, the second G.W. Blunt, No 11 was built at Boston in 1861. She was purchased by the pilot corporation to take the place of the orginal G. W. Blunt (1858), which was sold to the government and G. W. Blunt acquired by the Navy in New York in 1861. I hope this helps. --Greg Henderson (talk) 00:38, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm still inclined to merge both boats to the naval article. There's very little on the 2nd civil one & at least that avoids confronting the notability question. 11:36, 28 August 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnbod (talk • contribs)


 * comment Just because it's in Daily New York Herald doesn't mean it's an indication of much notability back then. The boat sinkage is akin to trivial reports of modern times reporting of so and so of Rural Route 1 wrecked his car. In the source https://www.newspapers.com/image/329399640/?terms=%22Pilot%2Bboat%2BG.%2BW.%2BBlunt%22 it's in the same section of paper that has trivial mundane things, for example: "A youth who was charged with stealing a piece of beaver cloth valued at $27 on the 21st of December from John G. Miller, pleaded guilty to petit larceny." Graywalls (talk) 04:41, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Graywalls, you are not getting my point. In the above citation, I was not talking about notability, but the fact that the newspaper source provides justification that there were two boats. The first boat served as a pilot-boat for the N. Y. Pilots, that was later sold to the US Government during the civil war. Then the pilots had to buy a second pilot-boat they named George W. Blunt, which was smaller and built in Boston not New York. Because of this, there is reason not to merge the two articles since one path was with the pilot-boat called George W. Blunt and the other path is the military history with the USS G.W. Blunt. If you combined them the history gets muduled. In terms of notability for the pilot boat, it is a perfect example of one of the orginal twenty-one 19th Century New York pilot-boats that existed in 1860 that we have an article about; the pilot-boat was discussed by a secondary source (Charles Edward Russell); the boat was bought by the US Government to serve in the Civil War; then a 2nd pilot boat was built in Boston to serve under the name George W. Blunt; quite an exciting history for an encyclopedia! --Greg Henderson (talk) 15:52, 28 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep and ideally merge in USS G. W. Blunt (1861). The news articles make it squeak past on notability for me; we have plenty of articles about accidents based on similar news sources when they're recent events. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:00, 29 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep:   Notable. There are reliable sources, including newspapers and published books.  -  Ret.Prof (talk) 17:04, 29 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Merge - the two articles should be merged together along with their article histories & citations. Netherzone (talk) 22:58, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * comment so from what I understand, first boat was built, then it was sold to become an USS. Then the second boat was built as a replacement, and the second boat was wrecked. I'd say preserve the USS article that's been here since 2007, merge the essetial information from this article Greghenderson2006 created much later than the original and redirect it to the USS/original. That's unless precedent says otherwise. Graywalls (talk) 04:56, 30 August 2020 (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.