Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Liverpool Hero (1798 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 merge to Liverpool Hero (ship). Viable ATD which has rough consensus Star Mississippi 03:52, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Liverpool Hero (1798 ship)[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)

No evidence of notability, only databases or very short mentions like here. Fram (talk) 17:08, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Transportation, Spain, and England. Fram (talk) 17:08, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable ship, entry based solely on database entries. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:05, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
“A few databases”. Clearly, you have not looked at the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade database. It is the preeminent online resource for the study of the trans-Atlantic trade in enslaved African people. The consortium supporting the database, which is housed at Rice University, includes, in addition to Rice, Emory, Harvard, University of California, the National Museum of African American History and Culture and the Omohundro Institute of Early American History and Culture, and the University of the West Indies. The Voyages Database functions like an academic journal: contributions must proceed through a peer-reviewed editorial process, and must therefore be documented thoroughly to enable the editors to verify the information. The database lists some 36000 voyages (incl. about 95% of all voyages originating in Great Britain/the UK). It tries to find information on over 200 variables. I am just starting to find some of the information available. Incidentally, the database lists 277 voyages for which there is evidence that the vessel was lost at sea with the loss of all its captives, as in the present case. These losses constitute less than 1% of known voyages. It is curious that something so rare and so tragic is not “notable”. Acad Ronin (talk) 20:38, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade database is a database. For the last time, the Wikipedia definition of notability is not the same as the dictionary definition. Stop conflating the two. I find your emotion-based arguments entirely unpersuasive. Nothing you've written here even attempts to make a valid argument for the retention of this article. I don't give a shit about Elon Musk and Twitter as far as it relates to keeping or deleting this article. You will not persuade anyone by simply appealing to emotion. Come back with a policy-based argument, or don't bother at all. The idea that deleting a database stub about a slave ship will somehow erase all our coverage of slavery is so ridiculous that I can't even take your arguments seriously at all. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:45, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: General: Wikipedia is a 21st century network. The articles, disambig pages, lists, ship indexes, etc. are the nodes. Links and categories connect the nodes. You cannot make a network better by removing a node and its links. What distinguishes Wikipedia from most other encyclopedias is not the quality of its articles, it is this network character. Elon Musk tried to renege on his bid for Twitter when he came to believe that there were far fewer actual nodes than Twitter had claimed, and that therefore it was less valuable than he had thought. Specific: Hannah Arendt introduced the phrase "Banality of evil". The slave trade was so normal in the eighteenth century, as was its death toll, that the disappearance of several hundred innocent enslaved people made little more than a contemporary ripple. But we are not in the eighteenth century. We should acknowledge the deaths in a way that people looking into the trade can readily find, providing instances such as this that articles on the overall toll necessarily aggregate. And having an article on the ship further contextualizes the loss and the human cost of the trade. Acad Ronin (talk) 19:20, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete grudgingly. I think we should have an SNG that allows us to keep verifiable slave ships, but we don't. Thparkth (talk) 21:38, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That would be a terrible idea, in my somewhat uninformed opinion. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:41, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- I have little doubt over the truth of the article, but we cannot have an article on every merchant ship in every trade in every era. Ultimately they are NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:41, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into ~~List of slave ships~~ Liverpool Hero (ship) as an alternative to deletion. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 11:17, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- There have been thousands of slave ships, many of them of little note; it makes no sense to merge all of them to that list, which should be restricted to notable ones probably. Fram (talk) 11:23, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  I don't see why the list can't be as full as we can make it. The ship only needs a one-line entry there. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 11:32, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Liverpool Hero (ship), which seems to be a sort of pseudo-DAB page? A more appropriate merge target than List of slave ships, and useful too: it enables distinguishing between the three ships that bore the same name. Suriname0 (talk) 17:07, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A note that I was unable to obtain a digital copy of "The Battle Against Slavery: The Untold Story of How a Group of Yorkshire Radicals Began the War to End the Slave Trade". If that source does contain significant coverage of the ship, I would prefer a Keep. (As Thparkth, this is a grudging vote for removal.) Suriname0 (talk) 17:10, 27 November 2022 (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.