Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RFA Mollusc

: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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. If anyone wants the content moved to user or draft space, pending finding sources, please let me know. (Alternatively, we could get {{u|EEng}} to retarget the term as being somebody who clings around the discussions at Requests for adminship like a limpet or some other mollusc.) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:39, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

=[[:RFA Mollusc]]=

{{AFD help}}

:{{la|1=RFA Mollusc}} – (View AfDView log | edits since nomination)

:({{Find sources AFD|title=RFA Mollusc}})

Non notable salvage vessel. I am unable to find significant coverage in reliable secondary sources (basically all I get is historicalrfa.uk which even if it met all the criteria for SIGCOV, which I am uncertain on, is only one source). I tagged this for notability a week ago, but the author simply reverted the tag without comment and declined to improve the article any further, leaving me with no choice but AfD. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:19, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Also noting that an attempt to draftify on March 1 was promptly reverted without comment by the article's author. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:22, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

  • Comment - article creator is a new editor. As well as the Historical RFA website used as a reference (from which the article can be expanded greatly), there is also [https://www.clydeships.co.uk/view.php?year_built=&builder=&ref=7554&vessel=MOLLUSC Clydesite]. The Times draws a blank this time. Mjroots (talk) 12:14, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
  • :Does Historical RFA meet our requirements for a reliable source? I've looked it over and can't find any sort of "about us" beyond two people listed as consultants. A trip to rfaa.uk is more promising, but I'm still not getting a clear sense of who their authors are and if the website counts as a reliable source. Forgive me, I am not shipsandotherthings so I'm not as familiar with sourcing in this area.
  • :If this were a warship, I'd probably have left it in the NPP queue, but a salvage vessel doesn't seem to have automatic notability. Perhaps there's a list article it could be merged to somewhere? Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:29, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
  • ::{{re|Trainsandotherthings}} - Given the detail of entries consistently across the site, I'd say yes. However, I'm not a MILHIST expert, it just happens that some ships have MILHIST connections. I'll ask over there, see what the experts say. Mjroots (talk) 06:39, 25 March 2025 (UTC)
  • Comment – Having had a look around the usual sources I agree that it is going to be difficult to prove notability for Mollusc. The Historical RFA page is more a list of seaman deaths plus two lines on the salvaging of some items from Falmouth than in depth coverage. Clydeships prove the ship existed but is not much more than a database entry. I think any evidence of notability will come from her later service as Yantlet, especially with mention of this 1667 Dutch warship and the possibility of work during the Second World War. I'm no expert on civil ship service so with have to leave it to others to prove or disprove. Looking at some definitely not reliable sources, it appears Mollusc may have originally been the name ship of the Trinculo-class mooring vessels. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 13:37, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

:

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Relisting comment: Relisting as no one but the nominator has actually cast a "vote" here yet. I'd also like to get this discussion a bit more time in case an editor knowledgeable about ships and shipping can propose an ATD. Too bad there isn't a deletion sort for "ships".
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:09, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

  • Keep - As I've shown above, sufficient sources exist to enable an article of at least start level to be written. As we all know, that an article needs improvement is never a reason to delete it. Mjroots (talk) 11:21, 7 April 2025 (UTC)
  • :Yet again, I'm attacked for daring to participate in NPP and bringing an article I could not find sufficient sources on to AfD. I'm extremely tired of this consistently poor treatment. I've improved many a poor quality article, and even saved several from deletion; I do not need a lecture on the subject, from you or from anyone else. You've identified exactly 1 additional source, which is simply a database with statistics and almost no prose at all, and then gone on a high horse about how it's so evil that anyone dare nominate an article for deletion. Not everyone is an expert in ships, and not everyone has the exact same interpretation of GNG. I did a standard BEFORE search before creating this nomination, as I always do. I don't understand why you have suddenly decided to implicitly accuse me of misconduct when we were having a perfectly civil discussion regarding the article previously. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:18, 7 April 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete{{snd}} I repeated my search for sources and still haven't found significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Even assuming [https://historicalrfa.uk/rfa-mollusc-ship-information/ historicalrfa] checks all the boxes (and its records are not, as it warns, "extremely sketchy"), a second source has yet to be found. I say that because I do not think that [https://www.clydeships.co.uk/view.php?year_built=&builder=&ref=7554&vessel=MOLLUSC clydeships] has significant coverage. I don't know if it's reliable, but it does seem indiscriminate. To quote from [https://www.clydeships.co.uk/ the website itself]: "This web site aims to present the vital information and the careers of {{Emphasis|all vessels}} built by the shipyards of Scotland" (emphasis mine). Not all of those tens of thousands of ships are notable enough for their own article, and in my subjective and non-expert opinion, there isn't enough in the RFA Mollusc's remarks section to prove notability. I would be happy to support an ATD if anyone can find one. PrinceTortoise (he/him • poke) 03:41, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete I feel this may be useful in another page, but not sure where. Ramos1990 (talk) 04:06, 8 April 2025 (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.