Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Agnes (1904)

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. There is a consensus that there is a notable topic at the heart of this article (incident). No consensus about possible rename which may happen according to the normal processes. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:52, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agnes (1904)[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Fails WP:GNG. A small boat with 2 crew sinking is not notable even if sources can be found Lyndaship (talk) 15:59, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:09, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:09, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:10, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- This launch is mentioned because it was involved in an accident, but the accident was no more notable than a car crash would be. If I am wrong in that the article needs to be expanded to explain what was significant about it. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:46, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Absolutely not notable at all. If it really was historic, we would have significant coverage, but I see none of that. Analog Horror, (Speak) 17:50, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable. -- Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:48, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but refocus on the collision. The ship wasn't notable, but the collision was - plenty of coverage here. Widely reported at the time with an inquiry afterwards. The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:43, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good find but I still doubt that a collision between a launch and a steamer resulting in one death is sufficient to warrant an article. It is already listed in List of shipwrecks in 1906 which is what is done for vessels which do not merit their own article. Would we have articles on every road collision involving a HGV and car - why should boats be different? Lyndaship (talk) 10:37, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The sources provide the guidance - dramatic collision in the middle of Sydney Harbour gets the solid coverage and the inquiry prolongs it. These things are not something determined by an objective rule. The Drover's Wife (talk) 11:50, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Every collision at sea results in an inquiry by some official body and is going to be reported by some newspapers. Just as every fatal car accident does. Lyndaship (talk) 13:02, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can't think of any car crash not involving a famous person that got that amount of coverage. The Drover's Wife (talk) 20:35, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can think of plenty. A recent one.[1] On the other hand, at least one such accident does have its own page.[2] That later case did provoke a change in the law though. Focusing on the merits of this case, I still think deletion is appropriate. The page is about the launch and there is so little information that a merge does not make sense. It is mentioned elsewhere and if the accident were that notable then a new page on the Sydney Harbour collision, written from scratch, would make more sense. -- Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:04, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep provided the article is retargetted about the collision. The vessel itself is totally not notable. I was going to go for a weak delete until I found this 2017 reference, so SUSTAINED?, and this international reference at the time. There is more than enough WP:NEXIST to write a non trivial article with some level of depth about the collision. Aoziwe (talk) 13:14, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - merits a referenced entry on the List of shipwrecks in 1906, but that is all. Mjroots (talk) 20:17, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep theres enough sources (see: Talk:Agnes (1904) for details) from across australia that makes this notable especially given it happen 1906 where media wasnt as inter connected, also a second incident which appears connected but will need extra investigation to confirm. Found on Trove using this search. Gnan garra 07:27, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Can't argue with the merit of the sources. Doctorhawkes (talk) 08:59, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KaisaL (talk) 00:29, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this is a keep per WP:NEXIST. Aoziwe has demonstrated the WP:LASTING impact of the event. And the other keep !voters have pointed to the many RSs that exist to add to the article. A good place to start is the talk page. Lightburst (talk) 00:53, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Some RS has been added- and a name change has occurred. Take a second look if you can. Lightburst (talk) 01:42, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Bold move rename to a collision article. Feel free to revert if you think so. Name is based on sources. -- GreenC 01:09, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is possibly a post-AFD discussion, but I would suggest a title of Manly–Agnes collision, to use an endash between the vessels' names and to make the term collision a common noun. --Kinu ^t/_c 19:24, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A routine accident with no lasting impact. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:57, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:32, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Comment, usually with an article like this it would be a case of WP:NOTNEWS, but this was covered across the nation:- The Sydney Morning Herald (Sydney) - "Sydney Harbour Traffic", The Albury Banner and Wodonga Express (Albury) - "Sydney Harbour Collision.", The Argus (Melbourne) - "Sydney Harbour Collision", Western Mail (Perth (Western Australia)) - "Collision in Sydney Harbour", The Brisbane Courier (Brisbane) - "Collision in Sydney Harbour", (even so, editors may call this routine coverage but then, there's just no pleasing some people:)), however, with the additional sources mentioned by Aoziwe above that it was reported on across the ditch (international), and in 2017 (lasting), this does raise it above the usual news reporting so is a Keep from me. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:39, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep under the re-named article, per WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 15:28, 9 April 2020 (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.