Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abandon vessel

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. feel free to create a redirect if you're inspired. I ain't. Wily D 09:07, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Abandon vessel[edit]

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

A one line article, that seems to be based on the dictionary definition of the subject. Delete per WP:NOTDICTIONARY. SMS ^Talk 17:53, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing more than a definition and likely to remain so. Mangoe (talk) 22:46, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Abandon Wikipedia. The article's sinking fast! Editors, women and children first. The expression's "abandon ship" anyway. Nobody says "abandon vessel".Clarityfiend (talk) 03:18, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, but to where? The general topic of ship evacuation is very notable, and there are articles on odd aspects, such as General emergency signal which should probably be merged with Muster drill, and Lifeboat (shipboard). Almost certainly others, and certainly there are articles on particular shipping disasters such as HMS Birkenhead (1845) and RMS Titanic. But I have not spotted a general article taking an historical perspective. For example, one of the little understood aspects of the Titanic disaster is that prior to that the general view had been that evacuating a large passenger ship into lifeboats would simply be impractical and too dangerous in most likely scenarios; historical experience had been that accidents normally involved foundering on a coast usually in bad weather. The ship was designed to stay afloat long enough to take passengers off, and ramming an iceberg at speed, or a catastrophic fire, had not been properly accounted for. --AJHingston (talk) 08:58, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:10, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Belongs in a dictionary, not here. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 14:30, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- a useless article. I am not clear why it has been translated into Greek. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:30, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not an encyclopedic article and never will be. --Kinu ^t/_c 19:35, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete violates WP:NOT#DEF and WP:NOT#DICT Curb Chain (talk) 22:43, 18 October 2012 (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.