Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Constantia (1822 ship)

{{AFD help}}

:{{la|1=Constantia (1822 ship)}} – (View AfDView log | edits since nomination)

:({{Find sources AFD|title=Constantia (1822 ship)}})

No evidence that this shortlived ship is in any way notable. Ships being wrecked was extremely common at the time, and nothing else seems to indicate a ship that warranted or warrants extra attention. Fram (talk) 13:59, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and England. Fram (talk) 13:59, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
• Delete coverage is exclusively primary, and at the time shipwrecks were a routine occurrence. There is no indication of notability. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:08, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
• Merge into Constantia (ship) per WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE. Not notable enough for its own article. gidonb (talk) 12:28, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
• Keep Had the wrecking appeared in a book of shipwrecks, the article would have been "notable", even if the book excerpt had been a verbatim quote from the press at the time. Although vessels were wrecked all the time, in this case all aboard survived. In researching this and similar articles I am struck by the interest among Australians, Canadians, and New Zealanders in how they got to their countries. Because all the migrants on Constantia survived, they had descendants, some of whom in doing genealogies and family histories might well be delighted to find an article on the vessel that brought their ancestors. Also, this RfD should also have beenlisted on the Canada project where eitors with access to Canadian sources might have found interesting material.Acad Ronin (talk) 22:17, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
• :Please at least try to give a valid reason for keeping this as a standalone article, besides "I think it's interesting". I think [https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q91831483 train photographer Roger Puta], whose thousands of photos illustrate numerous Wikipedia articles, is very interesting, but he doesn't meet GNG and therefore only has a wikidata item. And this ship does not meet GNG either, but we should keep it just because you think it's interesting? You think every ship to ever exist is interesting. If this is the best you can do, these AfDs are going to continue not going your way because a closer cannot possibly give your vote any real weight. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:04, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
• ::As an aside, I can only find scant information about Puta; I'd like to include an article about him, but there isn't much. He passed away and the family chooses not to discuss it (I have some vague idea why, but it's nothing we can use to build an article here). Oaktree b (talk) 21:00, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. gidonb (talk) 04:40, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

::Hi Acad Ronin, thank you for pointing this out. Done! gidonb (talk) 04:43, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

:

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:27, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

• DeleteMerge I don't see any indication of notability, unless some sort of secondary coverage can be found. Something in an old newspaper covering the wreckage, survivors, anything giving us a credible assertion of importance. If the article were about the shipwrecking itself (it could even be argued that it IS, since there's essentially no other content) it would be a clear A7. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 20:12, 30 January 2023 (UTC) Switching to !vote to Merge after further review. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 21:51, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
• Merge per gidonb, allowing restoration and expansion if someone finds more to add. I just gave notice of this AFD at wp:Canada per suggestion/request above. Please do not close before editors there have time to respond. "Keep" would also be okay by me. Articles like this should not be nommed for deletion as merging to a list-article already including the topic is obviously better than deletion. "List-item notability" standard is lower than for standalone articles; keeping this in the list-article on ships of this name is obviously helpful as part of what Wikipedia does well, adds serious value. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 00:57, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
• Merge Added a little, though not a game-changer. So far as I can ascertain there was no newspaper in Sydney NS in 1823 (where more detail might have appeared from the survivors). There is certainly material here to expand the section in Constantia (ship), and in List of shipwrecks in May 1823; I can see some also being relevant to articles on Acraman (Bristol merchants) and Shipbuilding in Quebec, when they come to be written, but it seems that, in the meantime, there is no room in WP for a healthy stub. Oh well. Davidships (talk) 20:42, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.