Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Lee (1831 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 no consensus to delete. After much-extended time for discussion, there is a clear absence of consensus for deletion, and at least a rough consensus that the combination of noteworthy paintings of the ship as a subject and other mentions in sources suffice to provide a basis for notability. BD2412 T 00:47, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

William Lee (1831 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)

Nothing on the page to suggest why this was a particularly notable whaler. Wikipedia is not a database WP:NOTEVERYTHING JMWt (talk) 13:56, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and United Kingdom. JMWt (talk) 13:56, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: That there are multiple contemporaneous paintings is a potentially good sign. Possible WP:ATD is a short partial merge to William Lee (captain). Curbon7 (talk) 19:54, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The paintings are all by the same artist, John Ward (painter) (and they could be transferred to his article's gallery). William Lee (captain) is also of questionable notability as well. I'm going to nominate him for deletion. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:07, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The linked paintings are particularly notable in their own right, enough to justify the article for context. Broichmore (talk) 12:25, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That feels like an argument of inherited notability (the paintings are notable so the ship must be..) and we don't normally give weight to that WP:NOTINHERITED JMWt (talk) 12:35, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep -- The article serves to provide a commentary on the paintings. Apart from these pictures, I would regard the ship as NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:30, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The commentary, if such exists, can go in the painter's article. Otherwise, this is a case of the tail wagging the dog. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:53, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Wikipedia's fifth pillar holds that WP has no fixed rules; what matters is making WP useful. This article has primary and secondary sources, and includes information on the search for the Northwest Passage, the development of Hull's economy, its whaling industry, and shipping in the second quarter of the 19th century. The paintings should also be added to the gallery of pictures associated with John Ward, but transferring all the info in the article to the article on John Ward would clutter that article; transferring only a few sentences throws away information. As things now stand, someone seeing the pictures in a gallery, or in collections of reproductions of maritime painting can easily google the vessel and find out more about her and the context of her career. Equally, users of WP looking at topics that lead them to her, may discover John Ward. Wikipedia is a network, and so much more than a paper encyclopedia. Articles represent nodes, and links, categories, lists, and the like are the links between the nodes. A network gains value from the number of nodes and the links between them; removing nodes and their links degrades the network.Acad Ronin (talk) 02:06, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not following the deletion rationale here. The paintings tell us the ship is notable. Artist John Ward selected the William Lee as the central object for three paintings. It's not inherited notability. The paintings illustrate the article, but also their placement here helps give context to the paintings by informing readers about the ship, which is exactly what this encyclopedia seeks to do. There appears to be sufficient coverage in multiple, reliable sources to pass the GNG. Rupples (talk) 03:58, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet GNG. Silly references above to "Wikipedia is a network" and similar were actively unconvincing. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:01, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The arguments above are strong reasons to keep the content, but poor reasons to keep the article. If the paintings are notable, they should have articles. If the ship is relevant context to the paintings, mention the ship where the paintings are discussed, in pages about the author or the artworks. None of this demonstrates why this title should exist. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:03, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Surely that's an argument to merge the content to a suitable article, as an AtD, rather than delete? Although, I've gone for keep, given the doubts expressed here over the notability of the ship, the next best option is I'd suggest a part content merge to John Ward (painter). Five of his paintings (out of 27) at Media related to William Lee (ship, 1831) at Wikimedia Commons are of the William Lee. If these are found to be commissions by the ship's owners (and there is a suggestion of this here,[1]) it weakens my keep notabilty argument for the ship. The paintings of the ship do nonetheless appear to form an important part of the output of the artist. Rupples (talk) 00:34, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or keep?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 00:26, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My edit above conflicted with the relisting comment. Rupples (talk) 00:39, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has largely focused on paintings, but this is sourced enough that we should not be hasty without a firm belief that the sources don't demonstrate notability. The Lubbock and Credland sources sound promising. I've less of an idea how much could be in some of the others such as Barrow, Hush, and Renshaw. I will suggest keep on the presumption that this meets WP:GNG through those 5 sources. Barring consensus to keep, an ATD should absolutely be used, likely merging to John Ward (painter) —siro χ o 05:12, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is coverage of this ship in connection with Arctic exploration: "It appears that both the Isabella and William Lee went up higher into Lancaster Sound by at least a hundred miles than any other whaler had ever done before." (1) There's also coverage of the 3 paintings of the ship as discussed above. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 05:37, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We have several different Merge/Redirect targets being suggested if this doesn't close as Keep.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:14, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- per @Peterkingiron, @Broichmore, @Acad Ronin, @Rupples, @Ficaia 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 15:28, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Broichmore et.al - wolf 09:27, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning to Keep. The paintings themselves constitute a secondary source supporting notability of the vessel, and there appears to be sufficient other coverage to flesh out an article. ResonantDis_tortion 09:52, 11 November 2023 (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.