573:
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
455:
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
384:
574:
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".
323:- 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,
175:
554:
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.
390:
408:
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
381:
209:
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
417:. 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
274:
252:
213:
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.
440:
130:
230:
169:
592:
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
387:
135:
350:
Now, got any sourcing for that? An article that claims "There was a distinctly identifiable group of ships called 'Admiralty tugs' also has to
562:
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.
621:
as per above. But the article may require cleanup and copy editing according to wiki policy. Additional reliable references would be nice. --
435:
One of the distinguishing features of an
Admiralty tug is that it carries armaments, which an ordinary tug does not. See, for example,
17:
103:
98:
558:
We still have no substantial references for the concept "Admiralty tug". A description of some other group (let's hypothesise the
506:
107:
67:
90:
536:
per
Bushranger and Tagishmon. (Is this geting SNOWY? Andy, do you feel the issues raised have been addressed sufficiently?)
472:. There's abundant evidence that there was a form of ship that could be recognised as an "Admiralty tug", for instance from
190:
53:
157:
304:
649:
40:
397:
332:
151:
297:. I searched Google for "Admiralty tug" (with quotation marks) and got 8,550 results. Here are some examples:
324:
630:
605:
583:
579:
545:
528:
511:
483:
450:
430:
426:
403:
363:
359:
338:
315:
286:
266:
244:
222:
218:
147:
72:
645:
480:
410:
36:
626:
499:
446:
311:
282:
197:
393:
328:
183:
62:
473:
210:
593:
94:
575:
524:
422:
355:
262:
240:
214:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
644:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
601:
541:
477:
163:
622:
492:
442:
414:
307:
278:
421:
more than mere ownership. How is an 'Admiralty tug' at all distinct from any other tug?
302:
57:
300:
86:
78:
306:. I therefore assert that there is an identifiable class of vessel "Admiralty tug".
520:
258:
236:
124:
456:
trawlers and the civilian trawlers that were called up during the two world wars.
597:
537:
298:
638:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
347:
Great, that is the sort of news that justifies the article.
596:, rather than here? (I've replied to your points there)
120:
116:
112:
182:
570:
All
Admiralty tugs had wooden bridge houses. Really?
275:
list of United
Kingdom-related deletion discussions
253:
list of Transportation-related deletion discussions
196:
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
652:). No further edits should be made to this page.
231:list of Military-related deletion discussions
8:
273:Note: This debate has been included in the
251:Note: This debate has been included in the
229:Note: This debate has been included in the
272:
250:
228:
491:per sources mentioned by The Bushranger.
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
372:- the sources are only required to
24:
1:
567:We also claim the following:
413:, or at least a type such as
669:
631:19:36, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
606:13:03, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
584:16:08, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
546:15:51, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
529:03:02, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
519:- for the reasons above.
512:00:58, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
484:22:49, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
451:07:46, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
431:01:29, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
404:00:46, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
364:23:35, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
339:22:32, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
316:19:38, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
287:15:13, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
267:14:43, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
245:14:43, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
223:12:28, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
73:22:14, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
641:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
325:AfD is not for cleanup
594:the article talk page
411:Leander class frigate
354:this, with sources."
48:The result was
509:
289:
269:
256:
247:
234:
54:non-admin closure
660:
643:
507:
400:
368:Technically, it
335:
257:
235:
206:Contested prod
201:
200:
186:
138:
128:
110:
70:
65:
60:
34:
668:
667:
663:
662:
661:
659:
658:
657:
656:
650:deletion review
639:
415:torpedo gunboat
402:
398:
337:
333:
295:Oppose deletion
143:
134:
101:
85:
82:
68:
63:
58:
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
666:
664:
655:
654:
634:
633:
615:
614:
613:
612:
611:
610:
609:
608:
587:
586:
571:
565:
564:
563:
549:
548:
531:
514:
486:
466:
465:
464:
463:
462:
461:
460:
459:
458:
457:
453:
396:
394:The Bushranger
378:in the article
348:
342:
341:
331:
329:The Bushranger
318:
291:
290:
270:
248:
204:
203:
140:
81:
76:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
665:
653:
651:
647:
642:
636:
635:
632:
628:
624:
620:
617:
616:
607:
603:
599:
595:
591:
590:
589:
588:
585:
581:
577:
572:
569:
568:
566:
561:
557:
556:
553:
552:
551:
550:
547:
543:
539:
535:
532:
530:
526:
522:
518:
515:
513:
510:
505:
504:
503:
498:
497:
496:
490:
487:
485:
482:
479:
475:
471:
468:
467:
454:
452:
448:
444:
441:
438:
437:Bustler class
434:
433:
432:
428:
424:
420:
416:
412:
407:
406:
405:
401:
399:One ping only
395:
391:
388:
385:
382:
379:
375:
371:
367:
366:
365:
361:
357:
353:
349:
346:
345:
344:
343:
340:
336:
334:One ping only
330:
326:
322:
319:
317:
313:
309:
305:
303:
301:
299:
296:
293:
292:
288:
284:
280:
276:
271:
268:
264:
260:
254:
249:
246:
242:
238:
232:
227:
226:
225:
224:
220:
216:
212:
207:
199:
195:
192:
189:
185:
181:
177:
174:
171:
168:
165:
162:
159:
156:
153:
149:
146:
145:Find sources:
141:
137:
132:
126:
122:
118:
114:
109:
105:
100:
96:
92:
88:
87:Admiralty tug
84:
83:
80:
79:Admiralty tug
77:
75:
74:
71:
66:
61:
55:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
640:
637:
618:
576:Andy Dingley
559:
533:
516:
501:
500:
494:
493:
488:
474:google books
469:
436:
423:Andy Dingley
419:type of ship
418:
377:
373:
369:
356:Andy Dingley
351:
320:
294:
215:Andy Dingley
208:
205:
193:
187:
179:
172:
166:
160:
154:
144:
49:
47:
31:
28:
478:Tagishsimon
380:. However:
170:free images
623:Bharathiya
508:Review me!
443:Biscuittin
308:Biscuittin
279:Necrothesp
646:talk page
376:, not be
259:• Gene93k
237:• Gene93k
211:WP:NOTDIR
37:talk page
648:or in a
131:View log
39:or in a
560:Bustler
521:Kumioko
370:doesn't
176:WP refs
164:scholar
104:protect
99:history
598:Xyl 54
538:Xyl 54
481:(talk)
148:Google
108:delete
502:Vesey
374:exist
191:JSTOR
152:books
136:Stats
125:views
117:watch
113:links
16:<
627:talk
619:Keep
602:talk
580:talk
542:talk
534:Keep
525:talk
517:Keep
495:Ryan
489:Keep
470:Keep
447:talk
427:talk
392:. -
360:talk
352:show
327:. -
321:Keep
312:talk
283:talk
263:talk
241:talk
219:talk
184:FENS
158:news
121:logs
95:talk
91:edit
56:) —
50:keep
198:TWL
133:•
129:– (
69:Lum
64:Sat
59:Hue
52:. (
629:)
604:)
582:)
544:)
527:)
476:--
449:)
429:)
389:,
386:,
383:,
362:)
314:)
285:)
277:.
265:)
255:.
243:)
233:.
221:)
178:)
123:|
119:|
115:|
111:|
106:|
102:|
97:|
93:|
625:(
600:(
578:(
540:(
523:(
445:(
439:.
425:(
358:(
310:(
281:(
261:(
239:(
217:(
202:)
194:·
188:·
180:·
173:·
167:·
161:·
155:·
150:(
142:(
139:)
127:)
89:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.