Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Admiralty tug

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. (non-admin closure) —Hue Sat Lum 22:14, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Admiralty tug[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested prod

Unsourced and the article fails to justify its main premise, that there was a form of ship that could be recognised as an "Admiralty tug". There was an admiralty, they had tugs, we could even write a WP:NOTDIR list article "List of tugs owned by the Admiralty". However there seems to be no evidence or justification to claim that they form a group that's distinguishable from any other tugs. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:28, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:43, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:43, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:13, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose deletion. I searched Google for "Admiralty tug" (with quotation marks) and got 8,550 results. Here are some examples: [1] [2] [3] [4]. I therefore assert that there is an identifiable class of vessel "Admiralty tug". Biscuittin (talk) 19:38, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there is a distinct type of tugs referred to as "Admiralty tugs". This is not defined as "tugs owned by the Admiralty", but rather a grouping of similar vessels that are known by this name. As for the state of the article, AfD is not for cleanup. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:32, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Great, that is the sort of news that justifies the article.

Now, got any sourcing for that? An article that claims "There was a distinctly identifiable group of ships called 'Admiralty tugs' also has to show this, with sources." Andy Dingley (talk) 23:35, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, it doesn't - the sources are only required to exist, not be in the article. However: [5], [6], [7], [8]. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:46, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, existence is theoretically enough - however what's the difference between your gHits and a simple reference to "tugs that belong to the Admiralty". This article treats them as a specific class, akin to Leander class frigate, or at least a type such as torpedo gunboat. It even makes definitive statements like there being a bridge house and it being made of wood (neither canvas dodgers, nor steel). Yet nothing so far shows any evidence for these being a type of ship more than mere ownership. How is an 'Admiralty tug' at all distinct from any other tug? Andy Dingley (talk) 01:29, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One of the distinguishing features of an Admiralty tug is that it carries armaments, which an ordinary tug does not. See, for example, Bustler class.[9] Biscuittin (talk) 07:46, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another feature (I'd have thought) is that an Admiralty tug would be a vessel built for the Navy to Admiralty specifications and for naval purposes, rather than a civilian tug temporarily requisitioned for Navy use; and the analogy would be the difference between the various classes of Admiralty trawlers and the civilian trawlers that were called up during the two world wars.

Keep. There's abundant evidence that there was a form of ship that could be recognised as an "Admiralty tug", for instance from google books --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:49, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources mentioned by The Bushranger. Ryan Vesey Review me! 00:58, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - for the reasons above. Kumioko (talk) 03:02, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Bushranger and Tagishmon. (Is this geting SNOWY? Andy, do you feel the issues raised have been addressed sufficiently?) Xyl 54 (talk) 15:51, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quite the contrary. It's one of those AfDs that will obviously close as keep (any objections to that are greater than one article), yet it's still a very poor article that fails to justify its main premise.

We still have no substantial references for the concept "Admiralty tug". A description of some other group (let's hypothesise the Bustler class) as "these were Admiralty tugs" still isn't defining what an Admiralty tug is beyond this class, or if there was such a definable group.

We also claim the following:

All Admiralty tugs had wooden bridge houses. Really?
All Admiralty tugs were armed. This is unsourced (without a definition of the set of "Admiralty tug" concerned, then how could it be sourced? I also very much doubt this. Why would the RN need to arm tugs working in Plymouth Sound, surrounded by far more effective warships of every size? Now clearly the Admiralty had many tugs, many of which were or could be armed, however they also had plenty that were unarmed. I still don't see a concept of "Admiralty tug" in the same way as "torpedo gunboat", and any more specific than "tug". Andy Dingley (talk) 16:08, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough; the article could do with a re-write, for a couple of reasons. But if you are resigned to it being kept, is it worth discussing how to fix it on the article talk page, rather than here? (I've replied to your points there) Xyl 54 (talk) 13:03, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per above. But the article may require cleanup and copy editing according to wiki policy. Additional reliable references would be nice. --Bharathiya (talk) 19:36, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.