Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Dudley Fooshe

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 concensus; default to keep. — Coren ^(talk) 00:54, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

• Disclaimer: non-admin close

[edit] James Dudley Fooshe

James Dudley Fooshe (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Procedural nomination; I am neutral. PROD tagged; tag removed by editor who was not original author with reasoning in edit summary; PROD tag re-added several months later. The latest reasoning for deletion reads "non notable Confederate soldier, wrote a few newspaper articles as his memoirs." The objection raised when removing first PROD tag was "Article claims notability ("noted Confederate veteran"). Isn't taht usually consiered reason enough not to PROD it? AFD it if you like." User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 18:36, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep Wrote many published articles on the war, has many references (in print media), was one of the oldest living survivors of the Civil War, also wrote on philosophy and other topics. We even have a picture of him and it is a well written article (unrelated to keep but always nice for this old of a topic) AND his history seems to be documented well. Don't see why there was ever a prod or AFD. Passes on all accounts. Pharmboy 19:17, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Pharmboy. - Cyborg Ninja 20:26, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Notable enough. Johnbod 22:04, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Very notable individual.--JForget 23:03, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
• Weak delete I admit putting on the prod, because I honestly do not think it is sourced. (had I thought it would be contested, I would of course had brought it here directly.) Though the article is interesting, the only source given is an unpublished manuscript deposited in two libraries. This does not count as a RS. Not having been published, there is no basis for assuming it to be any more valid than if it had been posted on a blog--it's the earlier equivalent for it. Perhaps his autobio is referred to by historians, but I couldnt find any evidence of it--there is nothing in Google Scholar. How is one to know that the entire thing is not fiction? DGG (talk) 00:38, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. I have to go with DGG here, even though I believe everything is basically true see obit, because I don't see any particular notability here. Served in war, check, made prisoner, check escaped, check, wounded, check, wrote about it afterward, check -- all these are quite common. He was locally notable but even being one of the veterans at the 75th anniversary of Gettysburg -- 1800 of them -- isn't a particularly special claim. There are no indications that his service was distinctive or merited an award like the Medal of Honor. There is no indication that beyond his local community his accomplishments were exceptional. There are, alas, thousands and thousands of comparable Civil War veterans. --Dhartung | Talk 12:47, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

There were perhaps hundreds rather than thousands with equal claims to notability - only a few wrote series of published articles on the subject. But how many do we have articles on, or are likely to get articles on? In the field of 18th century black ex-slaves in Britain - a population probably also running into the thousands, we have some articles that might not meet a very strict standard of notability, but are well worth having because so few lives are documented. Essentially they earn their place as representative figures. The same can be said of some articles on medieval people not from the upper class, and I would suggest this one too. Johnbod 13:49, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

• Procedural comment on the edit summary quoted in the nomination. An assertion of notability is enough to prevent a speedy deletion. A proposed deletion is for "uncontroversial" deletions, a much broader category. It is enough to remove the tag to dispute it, although if you do not improve the problems that caused the nomination you are pretty much guaranteeing a trip to AFD. --Dhartung | Talk 12:50, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Prod tag was added, prod tag was removed, prod tag was re-added (a couple of months later by a different person) - re-addition of the Prod tag led me to bring it to AFD. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 21:26, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment on my Strong Keep I have been doing some more homework on this one. Admittedly, it is very difficult to find independent information on this individual on the web, which doesn't mean he didn't exist or that he is not notable. "Verifiable" doesn't mean just through internet sources, after all. I also haven't found the book "Soldier, Planter, Philosopher: The Life of J. D. Fooshe" by Samuel Taylor Geer, although I have found enough evidence about the author from his (few) other books, mainly geneology and related, so book is very plausible. It seems that most of the books by Samual Taylor Geer are the sort that would be in a limited number of regional libraries. It is too complex and convoluted to be a hoax, and the more I research, the more I believe the article is true. "Proving" it, however, would require a trip to Augusta Georgia. Because of this, I think we have to default to KEEP as it is very likely that the information is correct (all that can be corroborated has been). If all else fails, WP:IAR would apply if needed because it is unreasonable to say that 100% of the time, you must be found on Google to be included in Wikipedia. I would tag the article to show there is a problem checking the references (unless someone wants to drive to Augusta or lives near by...) but I just don't see how we can delete it because "checking the references would be really inconvenient". Also meets WP:N, see article. Pharmboy 15:18, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. The book "Soldier, Planter, Philosopher" by Samuel Taylor Geer is held by the Library of Congress, but it is shown in their catalog as self-published. In my view, that makes it NOT a reliable source. Wikipedia is not suitable for all topics. It seems that Fooshe may possibly be notable, but an historian is needed to work over the primary sources and create a proper secondary account, so we have something to work from. If no historian ever steps forward, that can validly be counted as an argument against notability. The rule of 'no sources, no article' continues to apply here. EdJohnston 19:26, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment on Keep Self published does NOT automatically mean it isn't a reliable source, according to WP:RS because it isn't autobiographical or about a living person. Also, being held in the Library of Congress doesn't hurt either, so the main criteria is if he could be considered an expert in the field, which multiple books would indicate so. In this instance, the book would be considered a reliable source. Also, there are over dozen newspaper articles from the 1930s written by James Dudley Fooshe that are verifiable. The problem is you need to go to Georgia to verify them as it is a very old newspaper and they don't put articles from the 1930s online. The fact that verification is hard does NOT mean it can't be verified, particularly with a subject this old: it is expected. I understand the arguements, but it is breaking down into "you would have to go to Georgia to verify, so delete it" which is NOT a valid reason to delete the article. Pharmboy 20:51, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
  • As a side note, I would have no objection adding the EXPERT tag on the article. I am not trying to say there are no issues with the article, I am just saying they don't justify deleting the article when much of the content can be corroborated. Difficulty in verifying alone should never be the reason to delete. Pharmboy 20:57, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. Some of us recall the Arbuthnot controversy, one that led to many AfD nominations. These involved a series of articles on very-hard-to-research 19th-century British guys, where you would have to fly to England and look things up in the one archive library that had any information. Many of these articles wound up being deleted. If you have to travel to Georgia before you can even look at the sources that might establish notability then I think you don't have a case for keeping the article. For one thing, the article will never improve, because no-one can add anything to it without flying to Georgia first. Some things are just not meant for Wikipedia. EdJohnston 00:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Again, it appears to be a matter of threshold. I understand what you are saying, but "improvibility" isn't a reason for delete either (I don't think you were using that as reason for del, but still). But you are spot on regarding verification being a problem and why many times this would mean it should be deleted. I can't speak for the last round, but much of the references HAVE been checked out: the author exists and has self published several similar books, the book exists, it is registered in the Library of Congress, and no one has pointed to anything that doesn't add up yet. I would argue that someone CAN add to the article. Some people that read wikipedia live in Georgia, so it isn't fair to say "can't". Augusta is actually kinda nice, just not this time of year. It would be nice to see some of the articles he wrote and cross reference it more, and it can be done. It just isn't easy. Many articles on Wikipedia exist with only paper book references, and otherwise they would be potentially AFD candidates, too, if you can't find someone who has read the book. I know its a fine line, but I still feel we have exhausted every possible source, found the sources themselves are real and have no evidence it is a hoax or that the info is incorrect. In this case, the path of least resistance is keep and tag that it needs independent verification. Pharmboy 01:05, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment that an article "will never improve" is a strange reason to delete it entirely. It will certainly never improve then. We have people in Georgia (US state) for heavens sake - the other one might be more of an issue. Some of us do not actually have to "fly to England" either. Please improve your World-wide view! Johnbod 00:59, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment You don't have to fly to the state of Georgia to get the research done. You need to find a willing Wikipedian who is already in Georgia (or even Augusta) to conduct some research. See Category:Wikipedians in Georgia (U.S. state). --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:43, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment William Dudley Geer was also created by the same user, User:SamuelTGeer. I get the sense that all three are relatives. 3 years since creation, and no other articles link to either page. Besides style edits, no edits have been made to either page by other users. I'm no expert on notability guidelines, but I have a hard time seeing the importance of either figure. Alcuin 21:35, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

That seems more of a WP:COI issue, since the article is NOT about Mr. Geer (any of them) I am not sure it is a conflict. Also, User:SamuelTGeer is NOT a single purpose account and the entries, while not "wikiperfect" seem legit, and no one has been able to find anything incorrect. Your note is the closest I see to a potential conflict, while I would recon it is a relative that is making articles, likely correct, and we simply haven't found an easy way to verify them. We need a local and some time to look it up. Pharmboy 21:53, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

COI comment. I would argue that when Samuel T. Geer submits an article about a man whose biography he wrote and published himself, and is probably a relative (see the people named Geer in Fooshe's obit), that would normally be considered a COI. If the article is neutral and well-sourced, few people would complain. However, as some of us have argued above, 'well-sourced' would be an exaggeration in this case. No-one commenting here has reported that they have laid eyes on any of the claimed sources, because they are rather inaccessible.

Normally we don't allow a book or article to be listed as a reference unless the editor has seen it himself, and checked the contents. Some have argued here that we could keep the article, but place a tag to denote the absence of checking. Unfortunately every source would have to be tagged in this case, so we would be taking a great deal on faith. (Essentially, we would be trusting Mr. Geer for the truth of everything). That seems contrary to our normal desire to have references for what we assert. EdJohnston 03:05, 7 August 2007 (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.