Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beramba (ship)

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 Delete, unfortunately. And it pains me to do so. As a former Navy sailor, myself, I know that sailors form a special bond with their ships, and I do not doubt the memory of the source for this article one bit. Meh. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 01:39, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Beramba (ship)[edit]

I do not believe this article meets the various Wikipedia policies and guidelines, primarily the general notablilty guideline, as there is a lack of significan coverage in reliable sources.

The content is brief, and the only sources for the content I can find are the two interview transcripts listed as external links, and these are only brief mentions in hour-long interviews. Generic Google lists only 80 results for "beramba", with the majority of these being either Wikipedia mirrors of this article, content about the location in Madagascar, or unrelated to either. Searches of Scholar and Books come up with results falling into similar categories. Use of terms such as "ship" or "German" as qualifiers either return no results, or return results with no intersection between the terms. The official Australian World War I history (available through the Australian War Memorial) does not contain any mentions of a ship of this name (or if it does, Beramba is not listed in the indicies). In Chapter 18 of Volume 11, on page 627, an ex-German steamship called Bambra is mentioned, but as the text states the ship was too small for war transport duties and was instead lent to Western Australia as a replacement for a requesitioned ship, I doubt they are the same. General seraches of the Australian War Memorial nad Royal Australian Navy websites retuen no results for this ship's name.

I do not doubt that this ship existed and that the content is correct. However, I believe that there is not enough reliably sourced content out there to construct an article that meets our policies and guidelines. -- saberwyn 00:59, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. —-- saberwyn 01:11, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —-- saberwyn 01:11, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —-- saberwyn 01:11, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Strong keep~~ There are very likely to be many sources for this ship, just not readily available on the net. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:48, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Indeed there are likely to be sources for the ship, but the question is which ship? There's no record of a Beramba. I've added the article information and my original research speculation to the SS Omrah article discussion page. I think that's the ship in question. But as there is substantial proof this ship didn't exist, I think we can send her to the bottom! ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:43, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom as neither WP:V or WP:N are met. The article can always be recreated if sources can be found. Nick-D (talk) 07:08, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Great nomination Saberwyn, very thorough. But I'm happy with keeping small stubs like this, as long everything in the article is true, which your saying it is right? Ryan4314 (talk) 07:38, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I am saying that I think it is true. The lack of verification through the use of multiple reliable sources is my main concern and my main reason for nomination. A single man's brief reminisces as part of two recorded interviews, while more reliable than most sources that can be found on the internet, should not be the sole basis for an entire article, particulary when no other sources can be found both online and in print (the abovelinked Official History and several other Australian military history texts in my possession). As Nick-D says, the article can always be recreated when/if additional sources are found. -- saberwyn 08:54, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OIC, well you certainly have a point, if we can't verify it happened, then that's definitely not good. But, I'm still willing to take this article with a pinch a salt;

We suspect it's probably true
It's not controversial (I mean I know it claims 24 human beings died, but in the context of WW1, a drop in the ocean)
Is not violating BLP and it's just a stub (i.e. B-class referencing criteria)

I hope you don't think this is anything against you Saberwyn mate, it's just that I'm willing to give articles like this a bit of lenience. Ryan4314 (talk) 10:48, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, mate, I can agree to disagree on this matter. No offense taken. -- saberwyn 10:53, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nice one ;) Ryan4314 (talk) 11:00, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the ship may be the Omrah, and it has been transcribed incorrectly. See http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/FWWtroopships.htm ChildofMidnight (talk) 09:11, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But one of the facts presented in the article is that the ship was captured from the Germans - all of the ships on that list were requesitioned and entered wartime service on the side of the British Commonwealth. -- saberwyn 09:20, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have you ever heard Australians tell stories? Formerly British, German, it's an oral history. And try saying Omrah with an Australian accent...

SEE! Here's a nice link [1] to the handsome ship. Knowing some good Australian mates, I'm surprised the guy didn't say he was the ship's captain and that he sank a German battleship or two with it! :) Anyway, I don't think there's a Beramba, but I think we should work on the Omrah! Aussie Aussie Aussie, Oy Oy Oy. ChildofMidnight (talk) 09:23, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have heard Australians tell stories, told several of my own, and know how bad my accent is for non-Australians to understand. My point still stands that there is not enough reliably sourced information available at this point in time to justify an article on a ship called the Beramba. Please feel free to create a reliably sourced article on the Omrah, though. -- saberwyn 09:32, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I'm aware, only ships which were commissioned into a navy are considered automatically notable (as it's a given that there will be sufficient reliable sources on these ships) - all other ships need to demonstrate that they pass WP:N. Given that it's unclear which ship this article even refers to, there's not much chance of finding RS to establish that she was either commissioned into naval service (which isn't a given for a troop ship of this period; the Australian Government chartered ships to carry troops to and from Europe during the war) or is notable in her own right. Nick-D (talk) 10:15, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't the ship commissioned into a navy? Is it possible to compare dates to see if The Omrah (which certainly sounds like Beramba to me) matches up with this guy's voyage? ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:54, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) If she was commissioned, it wasn't in an Australian naval force. As for matching them up, dates aren't given in either transcript, but the voyage route is (to quote from the transcript: "...and ourselves, went aboard the Beramba in Melbourne bound for Aden … not Aden … yes Aden it was and eh eventually into Cape Town and on our way from Cape Town to Sierra Leone, which is on the West African coast the … what we term the Spanish Flu broke out… it was a devastating disease and eh … all the medicine on the ship was used up." Does this help? -- saberwyn 22:06, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep, Beramba certainly existed, and this source also confirms her existence and the Spanish Flu outbreak. Just because sources aren't available online doesn't mean there are no sources in existances. There's also this source. Mjroots (talk) 22:43, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, the two sources you link to can both be traced back to the same gentleman (or his family) on whose oral history the article is based, so it still boils down to one man's memory as the basis for this article. — Bellhalla (talk) 23:33, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is no independent verification that a ship named Beramba ever existed. The Miramar Ship Index (with 416,000 unique names for 292,000 ships dating to the 1870s) does not list any ship ever with the name of Beramba (and only one—Tanjung Berambang, a dredger built in 1993—that contains those letters in that order). Should reliable sources independent of Allan or his family come to light, I would have no objections against recreation. — Bellhalla (talk) 23:33, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unless independent sources can be found to verify the existance of this ship. All those posted thus far seem to be sourced back to one particular person, and other searches for information on this vessel have drawn a blank. At the moment, I'd have to say this is more or less unverifiable, and should be deleted as such. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 14:49, 20 December 2008 (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.