Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MV Peveril (1963)

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. Certainly no consensus for deletion. Much consensus toward a keep outcome for vessels of this class. (non-admin closure) BusterD (talk) 23:58, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MV Peveril (1963)[edit]

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

Not notable, just 94 hits on internet, including Wikipedia and clones. Nothing special happened with the ship. Night of the Big Wind _talk 21:27, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this seems very similar to last week's Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/MV_Ramsey. Haus^Talk 03:22, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - references need to be inline, but there is enough indication that the ship meets WP:GNG. Needing improvement is not a reason for deletion. Mjroots (talk) 09:16, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What is it that makes this ship special? I don't see anything of that. It was built, is did his job, it was sold, it was scrapped. I guess there are then of thousands of other ships with that record. Night of the Big Wind _talk 11:46, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Being special isn't a requirement for inclusion in Wikipedia, being notable is. Notability has been established by the WP:GNG. Haus^Talk 05:38, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, the ship was built, did its job and got scrapped. There are thousands of ship articles with just this scenario. All meet GNG and WP:SHIPS/AFD show that very few ship articles get deleted except where the ship fails CRYSTAL or can be shown not to meet GNG. Mjroots (talk) 17:35, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It only proves that WP:SHIPS is screaming loud enough to get their "POV" through while not being a generally accepted policy or guideline... The mere existence of an object does not make it notable. Wikipedia is not a collection of data, but an encyclopedia!! Night of the Big Wind _talk 18:42, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strangely, the assertion that 'Wikipedia is not a collection of data' does not appear in WP:NOT (perhaps you can differentiate a 'collection of data' and an encyclopaedia for us). As other users have pointed out, it is not the case that the subject of an article must demonstrate that it is special in some way. It must demonstrate notability. The collection of links and references in the article achieves this amply. A review of WP:GNG before you nominate articles would be helpful. Benea (talk) 19:10, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Subject to meeting GNG through WP:V by WP:RS, WP:SHIPS position is that any ship of 100' long or 100 tons (deliberatrely vague) is generally notable enough to sustain a stand alone article. This ship adequately meets this. Mjroots (talk) 19:43, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets GNG. Haus^Talk 05:38, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Haus, Mjroots and my arguments at the previous debate. Benea (talk) 23:57, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This is absurd. Everyone makes reference to WP:GNG but no one makes a specific application to prove notability. To the contrary: there is absolutely no evidence that any of these run-of-the-mill ships are notable. All the references are only trade publications and databases/directories (that prove existence but not notability). However, I abstain from voting only because it seems to be an established practice to include all and any kind of ships, no matter what its history, notability, or legacy was. This AfD is not the forum to change this (we may need a discussion at WP:SHIPS). -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 15:37, 5 September 2011 (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.