Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Warden


 * 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 no consensus. Joyous! | Talk 15:26, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

James Warden

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Fails WP:GNG. Local interest only in deceased duelist. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:26, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military,  and England. Skynxnex (talk) 14:35, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 14:36, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep The last three paragraphs of this article are devoted to the subject. There's also a recent article in a local newspaper, here. There were also reports in several newspapers at the time of the duel: see here. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 14:47, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Also mentioned in this book (a paragraph and some verses by his widow on p. 310). And a page and a half in this book on pp. 66-67. Both sources were listed in the article, and yet they aren't mentioned by the nominator. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 14:53, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:41, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Dubious -- This individual is wholly NN, except that he died in a duel. Duelling was illegal, so that I would have liked to know what the consequences were for the other party.  Are deaths through duelling notable enough to warrant an article?  I have no issue with its sourcing .  Peterkingiron (talk) 14:12, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:BIO1E. Mztourist (talk) 02:56, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The duel was a notable event, and has received significant coverage. It is covered in newspapers at the time, and in two book-length histories over a hundred years later. The sources also describe the duellist's distinguished naval career in nineteen battles, and he's clearly the main focus of all the sources, so it makes sense to have an article on the man rather than the duel. But this could quite easily be turned into an article about the duel and renamed, if others think that is a better way to present the information. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 05:23, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete Not seeing the significance of the man or the duel. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  08:47, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Have you looked at the sources linked above? 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 09:48, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Relisting comment: Can those arguing to delete please analyze the sources provided? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 18:12, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Well one of them didn't work for me. The newspaper article said that he was a naval hero, but the article doesn't say anything about that. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  10:07, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I was referring to this book. The duel itself may be the better title and focus of this article. Do you think the sources I've linked above do not provide sigcov of the duel? 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 11:14, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Two pages in a book about the area? No. Besides, what's there to say? Two neighbours argued and fought a duel; one died, the other fled. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:03, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Plus the 4 other sources I linked above which none of the delete voters have even mentioned... 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 05:47, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * His naval career and other aspects of his life are also covered in detail in this recent article, which calls him a "naval hero". Only about a third of it is devoted to the duel. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 17:32, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Weak delete If he had a "distinguished naval career" we should be seeing more distinguishing stuff about it. The duel is interesting, but not terribly notable. I'd don't think he'd be at GNG without the duel, not sure that adds much to it. If he wasn't in the Navy, a guy who dies in a duel but does nothing outside of that wouldn't be GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 18:20, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Can you explain why you think the sources above don't give significant coverage? The last source I linked goes into his naval career in some detail. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 18:29, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * It's a fine source, but it seems to be the only one about the Navy, I didn't consider the ones discussing the duel particularly detailed. He was in the English Navy, I'd expect something to be found in the Royal Navy archives if he was that "distinguised". It's almost at GNG, if we had another source for the naval information I'd feel more comfortable offering a GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 00:49, 3 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep I think there's enough for notability: there were reports of the duel at the time across the country, for example Caledonian Mercury - Monday 07 May 1792 (registration reqd), Notes and Queries from 1924 has a couple of pages about the duel and seems he was regarded as a naval hero: Catching smugglers, an expedition against the French and intercepting merchant ships... the fascinating tale of a naval hero and Illustrated talk on Charmouth’s village’s tragic naval hero Piecesofuk (talk) 14:22, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete, No sign of notability. Alex-h (talk) 16:31, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak delete - sorry, but I can't see anything beyond local interest here. James Warden doesn't seem to be notable in any wider sense, despite a couple of over-enthusiastic headlines, and the duel doesn't seem to meet WP:EVENT. Ingratis (talk) 14:46, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. Seems to meet GNG. This source from Piecesofuk is significant. Here's another book which discusses his navy career, although I don't have access to much of it. Here's another book that discusses his duel, also not mentioned so far. This (unsourced but) detailed article discusses his navy career (he captained the HM Adventure (verification) and the HM Wells (verification)), and much more. In light of Ficaia's earlier findings, I think we have GNG., do you think so?  Arbitrarily0   ( talk ) 03:25, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment - I don't agree. None of these goes beyond local interest. The main source of information is the memorial inscription in the churchyard; the rest are passing mentions only (he commanded X ship, he commanded Y ship: not notable), not the coherent accounts / research that would satisfy GNG. The story of the duel is repeated with very few changes from one source to another, and is on the level of a curiosity, sparked by the unusually long memorial inscription. The story in the Bridport News is about a local talk, and repeats pretty much the same information plus some extra genealogy. Not everything old is notable, however often it's repeated. Ingratis (talk) 03:51, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Significant coverage, according to GNG, is that which addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. It would certainly be nice to have more detail; but what we have is enough to write a balanced, accurate, and sufficiently-detailed article, which is what GNG is, in part, intended to ensure.  Arbitrarily0   ( talk ) 12:25, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. Frankly it light of the sourcing presented in this discussion I think WP:GNG is easily met. Sources found the man sufficiently of note to write about him during his life, at his death, and again more than 120 years later. Ficaia's sourcing alone is in my opinion sufficient, and the Bridport News story cements it. I think that the man is more notable than the duel; while it wouldn't be enough alone, his naval career, including twice holding command at sea, adds to his notability. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  05:05, 10 November 2022 (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.