Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/USS APL-42

Add links
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 was delete. ✗plicit 09:49, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

USS APL-42[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

USS APL-42 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication why this (and probably many similar ones) would be notable. The three awards were given to millions of people and (as in this case) vessels, the two sources are basically (good) fan sites, and looking for other sources gave nothing that indicated any notability.[1]. This nomination is only for this page, as other similar ships may have some notability individually: but probably all of these need to be looked at. Fram (talk) 08:50, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Lacks SIGCOV in RS, fails WP:GNG. WP:Before only turns up user-submitted/SPS fan websites. -Indy beetle (talk) 09:36, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Large vessel, easily meets basic ships notability criteria. Source added Lyndaship (talk) 09:38, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Lyndaship: What policy are you referring to? -Indy beetle (talk) 09:48, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • It would appear my memory is playing tricks. I thought somewhere it said somewhere "any ship over 100 tons (by any measure) is likely to be notable" but all I can find is the project scope which says commercial ships under 100 tons are outside the scope of the project. Lyndaship (talk) 07:35, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • You added a primary source, which adds nothing towards notability. If such ships which have not received significant attention from reliable independent sources "easily meet the basic ship notability criteria", then these criteria are wrong. Then again, I can't find any trace of these criteria, they don't seem to be an accepted guideline anyway. Fram (talk) 09:50, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • True but part of your nomination was that its only sources were fan sites. The NVR is not a fansite Lyndaship (talk) 07:35, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, a reliable source which proves the ship actually exists is not the same as demonstrating that it is notable. -Indy beetle (talk) 04:20, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - A clear cut case IMO. This very evidently does not satisfy WP:GNG. Even the first two pages of Google fail to show any notability, which says a lot about whether Wikipedia should contain it. As this is an Encyclopaedia and not a collection of every fact ever to exist, I do not think this article should remain as its lack of notability means it is simply not of Encyclopaedic value - Such-change47 (talk) 10:00, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
not being able to find any reference in Google for some subject where one would expect references there is a reasonable ground for suggesting deletion, but not being able to find one in the first two pages is not. It's not an adequate search. DGG ( talk ) 22:43, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I'm not able to find significant coverage from independent RS. For the record, the most relevant notability essay (NB: not guideline) seems to be WP:NVEHICLE which states that "Almost all individual vehicles are not notable" -Ljleppan (talk) 10:09, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is true that of the 100s of millions of individual vehicles in the world almost all are non-notable, but perhaps 1% are, which would be a million. That's not an arguement that this ship isn't among them. Capital ships often are. DGG ( talk ) 22:43, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying this is a capital ship? Clearly it is not. Intothatdarkness 22:49, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think DGG was only trying to point out that many ships are indeed quite notable, and so NVEHICLE isn't really applicable here. The main thing is that battleships and aircraft carriers are often extensively discussed in RS, especially if they've fought in wars, unlike this dime-a-dozen barracks ship. -Indy beetle (talk) 09:06, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, and that was my assumption as well. I was just trying to get clarification so other voters weren't confused. I could see a possible class article for these ships, but having articles for individual barracks ships...not so much. Intothatdarkness 16:21, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:BASIC. If RS can be found, then a page about the class with a listing of each ship may be worthwhile. Mztourist (talk) 11:01, 17 December 2021 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/USS_APL-42&oldid=1061842675"