Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/USNS Stalwart
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 of the debate was Keep Computerjoe's talk 14:12, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
USNS Stalwart[edit]
Article is a word for word copyright infringement with minor spelling errors to make it difficult to find in searches. Original page can be found here [1]. Ataricodfish 02:29, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete copyright infringement is a cause for improvement, not deletion. However, this ship carried fourty people during routine work. it's just nn.
- Comment Actually, I disagree. Copyright infringement actually qualifies this article for Speedy Deletion per [2], except that I can't prove that the ENTIRE article was plagiarised, I can only prove that MOST of it was. I personally feel this should be speedy deleted, but as I can't be 100% certain, I've brought the article here. --Ataricodfish 03:12, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I've removed the copyvio section, leaving the lead section only. Still doesn't look notable, though. It was a relatively small vessel, and isn't unusual in any way - the original article didn't indicate that it saw any action. Zetawoof(ζ) 03:10, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep seems to be the first of an entire class of ship. The article could probably be expanded to cover the entire class of Ocean Surviellance Ships. --MarsRover 03:49, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It's got an interesting history Tyrenius 04:08, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep First vessel of a class; still in service at a major maritime school. -- stubblyhead | T/c 04:16, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I think it is worthy of an article per aforementioned; I simply think it needs attention and expansion; it has legitimate citations and thus seems notable enough to keep. --Marsbound2024 04:49, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. For Christ's sake, never nominate a real ship for deletion. We have enough fake ones. Brian G. Crawford 06:57, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- This seems a bit close to a WP:POINT, unless you've had a change of heart I'm not aware of. If you're still annoyed about fiction cruft, drop me a line on my talk page sometime. There's plenty of work that can be done. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:14, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I thought we should keep it and definitely attempt to expand it. It could be a good article if it is worked on. This is notable, factual information that simply needs more than ship specifications. If anything it needs a tag that says request for expansion. :) --Marsbound2024 07:49, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or merge to an article on the class if there are several similar. Just zis Guy you know? 11:41, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or Expand. Nothing much yet. M1ss1ontomars2k4 23:19, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, obviously. Navy ships are inherently notable. wikipediatrix 23:37, 12 May 2006
Jesus Christ, if "Tomato Adventure" is noteworthy how is a training ship not? (UTC)
- Comment Wow -- I expected to log on today seeing this page speedy deleted, and was really surprised at the amount of keeps and some of the comments making it sound like my nomination was moronic! :) Anyway, some back story -- This page was originally 99% a copyright violation which appeared quite dubious, in my opinion. The only reason I didn't speedy delete it, which I still feel this qualifies for, is because I couldn't be certain if the table information currently in the article was copyrighted or not. Today, I've found that most of that information is at [3], so I'm willing to say this article was created as a 100% copyright violation and should have been deleted immediately. I personally feel that once an article is found to have been created as a copyright violation which places Wikipedia at the risk of credibility and lawsuits, the article should be deleted immediately and, if so be, started over. I never said the article was nonnotable, which is why I'm surprised at the comments about how "obvious" this keep is or how this is important because "Tomato Adventure" is important. I feel that the article should have been deleted due to the copyright risk it brought and potentially still brings Wikipedia and it should be started over if an editor was interested in making it. I still feel that way, and still feel this should be deleted and given a fresh start, but of course, I'll respect the results of the vote in here. --Ataricodfish 00:55, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Did you paste the wrong link? I do not see where the article copied the stats. One says "Compliment" and the other "crew" and they give different numbers anyway. Sure the ship dimensions are the same but why would they be different? --MarsRover 04:04, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- That was the link, but as one can't copyright dimensions and numbers, you're right, a number's a number. I'll let that issue slide and stand by the fact that 98% of the original article was copyrighted and the other 2% was simply unsourced, if that's somehow better. But my original issue remains -- the article raised credibility and legal issues for Wikipedia. Much of the keep votes stated it should stay for noteability issues, which I never brought up in my objection. I just felt it should be deleted because I'd rather Wikipedia's fundraisers not go toward legal costs defending preventable violations. --Ataricodfish 05:46, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Did you paste the wrong link? I do not see where the article copied the stats. One says "Compliment" and the other "crew" and they give different numbers anyway. Sure the ship dimensions are the same but why would they be different? --MarsRover 04:04, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Wow -- I expected to log on today seeing this page speedy deleted, and was really surprised at the amount of keeps and some of the comments making it sound like my nomination was moronic! :) Anyway, some back story -- This page was originally 99% a copyright violation which appeared quite dubious, in my opinion. The only reason I didn't speedy delete it, which I still feel this qualifies for, is because I couldn't be certain if the table information currently in the article was copyrighted or not. Today, I've found that most of that information is at [3], so I'm willing to say this article was created as a 100% copyright violation and should have been deleted immediately. I personally feel that once an article is found to have been created as a copyright violation which places Wikipedia at the risk of credibility and lawsuits, the article should be deleted immediately and, if so be, started over. I never said the article was nonnotable, which is why I'm surprised at the comments about how "obvious" this keep is or how this is important because "Tomato Adventure" is important. I feel that the article should have been deleted due to the copyright risk it brought and potentially still brings Wikipedia and it should be started over if an editor was interested in making it. I still feel that way, and still feel this should be deleted and given a fresh start, but of course, I'll respect the results of the vote in here. --Ataricodfish 00:55, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Basic facts cannot be copyrighted, but certainly any copyrighted material should be deleted. The article itself, cleansed of any copyright violations, should stay. -- DS1953 talk 16:22, 15 May 2006 (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.