Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Jackson Sowell

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. Yunshui 雲‍水 09:53, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Jackson Sowell

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

This person is not really notable, per the GNG. He was a soldier in several wars but did not distinguish himself in any significant way. I've read dozens of books on the Alamo (claim to fame 1), and he is not mentioned in most and mentioned in passing in a handful. His other claim to fame is his Ranger and war service after the Texas Revolution, and documentation for that comes solely from books written by his son. Karanacs (talk) 19:21, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator. Karanacs (talk) 19:22, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If we can fix that he was an "Alamo Defender Survivor", then he's notable. But the real issue is reliable sourcing. Bearian (talk) 19:44, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not a major player, but notable enough to still get mentioned after nearly 200 years. There's plenty of references. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 19:49, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

None of the references provide significant coverage. Three of the listed references mention him in passing along the lines of "he was outside the Alamo walls doing blah blah when Santa Anna arrived and he couldn't get back in". So no, he did not survive the battle itself - he wasn't there for the siege. One book was written by his son. Findagrave and sons of dewitte are not reliable sources. Moore (2006), p. 193 is simply a muster list that has Sowell's name on it. One of the Moore books pretty much just says Sowell's son wrote about the exploits of his father in the Texas Rangers. It's trivial information. He's not considered significant by Alamo scholars and not by Texas Ranger scholars either. Karanacs (talk) 20:20, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Maybe there are sourcing issues - maybe not. And maybe we could allow DLS Texas time to strengthen the article and sort out the sourcing. I don't see any discussion on the article's Talk page abut this. I found A Guide to the Andrew Jackson Sowell Family Papers, circa 1880-circa 1954, but it's not the same individual. This is the nephew. Still, there's so much utter and total c**p out there on Texas articles, but DLS Texas is one editor out there who is really trying to do articles correctly. I think maybe we can give this author a second chance to make improvements and show us why this individual is notable. — Maile (talk) 00:25, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 1) For the reasons given by Maile above; 2) I knew the name and the story of his part concerning the Alamo. 3) That is a substantial Texas military career-- of which I was unaware. 4) While all Texans participating in the Revolution are equally notable, some are more equal than others-- or something like that. 5) It is a new article. Let's see where it goes-- not just what DLS might do with it, but what other researchers may be able to add over time. That is, I have seen several start-class articles which missed the big stuff initially-- supplied by others once the article was found to exist. --cregil (talk) 02:16, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Additional thoughts. I'm enough of a Texas history fanatic to want everything about the Alamo to be correct as possible. Karanacs has been one of the most extraordinary contributors to Wikipedia in its life span. Bar none - Karanacs is an incredible editor and Texas historian. That said, who got documented in history before the mass media era, was sometimes who had the right friends in the right places, the correct relatives and friends to make sure their contribution was not lost. 254 counties were named after pioneers that not even scholars can always effectively find information on. Sowell was a participant in the revolution. Accomplishments? IMO, seems like saying qualifications for burial in a military cemetery should be based on a check list of accomplishments. Findagrave might not be considered reliable, but that photo of the tombstone erected by the Texas Historical Commission certainly testifies to his notability. Wording on the tombstone lists him as a "courier from the Alamo":.THC Tombstone marker The Project Texas Clean Up List gives one an idea of the over 8,000 Texas project articles that have serious questions. By comparison, Andrew Jackson Sowell doesn't look so bad. — Maile (talk) 13:29, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I fundamentally disagree that anyone who fought in the Texas Revolution is notable in terms of getting a Wikipedia article. I've done some extensive searching in my sources and can't find more information on [b]this[/b] Andrew Jackson Sowell. Most of what is available was written by his son, the Andrew Jackson Sowell who would definitely meet the WP Notability criteria. I don't mean to disparage DLS - he's done excellent work on a lot of articles, I just think this particular man doesn't meet the criteria - the sources do not cover him in any significant way. Some mention him in one or two lines (he was fortunate to be out of the Alamo when Santa Anna arrived). The rest of the sourcing is along the lines of "his son said the father was in the Texas Rangers" and "here's a roster for this particular military company; his name is on it." Karanacs (talk) 19:16, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He appears in the Handbook of Texas, which is basically an encyclopedia of the state. Should we tell the professionals who write the Handbook that they're wrong to include him in an encyclopedia? Nyttend (talk) 22:02, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delsort notes

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 22 November 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.