Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Captain Richard Avery Hornsby

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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). Pablo Talk | Contributions 02:08, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Captain Richard Avery Hornsby

Captain Richard Avery Hornsby (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This appears to be a hoax. Originally created on 19th September it was speedily deleted as the author had blanked the page. He has since recreated it but it reads like a story. The source given for the burial records shows not record of a burial of a person of this name so should be discounted. The second source is merely testifies that a song may (or may not) exist. A Google Search produces a big fat zero, apart from the Wikipedia article [1]. B1atv 20:36, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Not sure yet. I found a Richard Hornsby at the burial cite given, but couldn't verify the ballad- there are a lot of ballads on that source. It's possible that this is real history, and just needs a serious rewrite. It would help if the creator could scan the relevant page of her source; I don't think my public library has a copy and it doesn't seem to be available online, as far as my googling could turn up. I'm hesitant to say 'delete' until the creator has a chance to respond with a reliable source or two. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:43, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Best I could find is [2], and a cursory examination does confirm a few details, such as the time and location. Yngvarr (t) (c) 20:45, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:HOAX. STORMTRACKER 94 20:50, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - I think this AFD is premature. The article in its current state has a lot of issues, but I don't think that it is a hoax. There does appear to be the possibility of finding reliable sources, but given that the type of sources may not be available on the Internet, the article should kept to give more time to acquire sources. -- Whpq 20:58, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per the link provided by Yngvarr. Several keywords in this article appear in the book. Not sure of his notability, yet. If kept, it needs a rewrite.--Sethacus 21:35, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per above two posts, this is way premature, mere hunches are not enough to delete at this stage...some evidence exists, clean up more appropriateJJJ999 02:30, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
  • This is not a HOAX article, as B1atv and STORMTRACKER claim. Google has been the death of REAL research. Just because something doesn't come up on Google, it doesn't mean it isn't true. Seahamlass 12:20, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment to above The policy on burden of evidence places responsibility on the editor to cite reliable sources. There does seem to be sources, but the proof you provided are a graveyard and a ballad. With regards to the google dig, I'm actually likely to agree with you, that google has been used to inappropriately give weight for arguments for deletion (not just this one, either). Given the antiquity of the subject, it may be difficult to provide online results; but in the same manner, given that any subject material likely pre-dates any copyright laws, you might be able to get these texts online in some manner (I don't know if wikibooks would be the place) which may also provide enough supporting evidence for the subject. Yngvarr (t) (c) 12:37, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is interesting and quite fun to read. A lot less dry than some of the more edited Wiki entries! (And I've heard about this man, too, as we learned about him in school for A Level history way back in the 1980s!) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.188.174.63 (talk) 14:27, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
  • keep only if an actual source can be cited - Djgranados 22:08, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. The article is backed by three sources, including a scan of a book featuring Captain Hornsby. He has also been written about in another history book too, making him a notable person and therefore worthy of a Wiki page.79.66.137.81 23:56, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. The moderator who originally nominated this for deletion, B1atv, has admitted on his own talk page that he 'may have made a mistake' by making the nomination. I will quote the full phrase, and it is up there on his talk page for all to see: "I may have made a mistake with nominating the Captain Richard Avery Hornsby article for deletion under the Articles for Deletion process." B1atv 07:12, 5 October 2007 (UTC) Seahamlass 16:02, 9 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seahamlass (talk • contribs)
Yes, that was gracious of him, wasn't it? I've put articles up for AfD that ended up being kept, too- that's why we discuss with the community instead of just deleting things; so we can try to avoid mistakes. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:04, 9 October 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.