Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Woolton (ship)

{{AFD help}}

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

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

I redirected three articles (Woolton (1774 ship), Woolton (1786 ship) and Woolton (1804 ship)) to this article, and User:Martin of Sheffield then merged them.

However, neither of the three is notable, and while the second one replaced the lost first one, there seems to be no link with the third one. If the individual ships aren't notable, having a "list" which is just a sequence of three articles isn't any better. There are no sources about "ships called Woolton", it's not a topic of interest as such. Such a list where at least one ship is notable and has its own article may perhaps be useful, but if none of them warrant an article, then a group of articles masquerading as a list is equally unwarranted. Fram (talk) 12:41, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and England. Fram (talk) 12:41, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

:I merged the articles because {{U|Fram}} considered the individual stubs to be of no interest (to him) but did decide to keep the list (including circular redirects). A bare list is of no use to anyone checking up on the details of the ships whereas including the information from the stubs makes a useful resource. The work has been properly cited (Lloyd's Register and four other sources). The 1804 ship is of particular interest being involved in the slave trade right at the end (indeed she was wrecked in the same year that the Slave Trade Act 1807 was passed). Individuals' interpretation of WP:NOTABLE is notoriously idiosyncratic, let alone whether or not one finds it "not a topic of interest". I suspect that this is a classic disagreement between Deletionism and inclusionism in Wikipedia.

:In short, having decided to set up a redirects to an article it seems a little odd to now be trying to delete the self-same article because it has been improved. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 13:03, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

::I hadn't realised at the time that the redirects meant that no individual entries were left. The sources are primary (Lloyds, usually passing mentions) and databases, none of the ships have significant coverage in secondary sources (if I missed any, please list it here). Fram (talk) 15:15, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

:Keep Although the content needs reducing it is a set index article which are created for all ships having a common name Lyndaship (talk) 13:14, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

::Being a set index is not sufficient reason to keep an article, in a case like here were none of the individual entries are notable, the group has had to have received some attention. We wouldn't accept a set index of bakers called John Smith even if we could verify the existence of a few of them, something more is needed to be an acceptable set list. Fram (talk) 15:13, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

:::Can I refer you to WP:CSC in particular {{tq|Every entry in the list fails the notability criteria. These lists are created explicitly because most or all of the listed items do not warrant independent articles}} Lyndaship (talk) 15:19, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

::::Yes. That doesn't mean that you can have a list where every entry fails the notability criteria, and the list topic as a whole hasn't received attention. Otherwise one can create lists for everything that is verifiable, without any other care about any notability whatsoever. Fram (talk) 15:37, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

• Keep. I don't agree with the proposer's interpretation of WP:CSC; to do so negates the whole purpose of ship name lists. They serve the interests of readers seeking information about a particular ship named Xyz - that is not a contrived request, it is exactly what readers do. These ship ilst not only point readers to any that have existing articles (as a dab page would), but also inform that there are other examples of the name about which verified information on their activities and characteristics is available, even if limited. In many cases more detailed information can be present in other articles which can be signposted (eg participation in events or activities, shipbuilder articles, wrecks).

:Observation. This seems to be a new tactic to evade established due process for deletion via WP:AFD, in this case, three articles - for example Woolton (1786 ship): (1) delete all the content and convert to redirect, (2) propose the deletion of the target article, (3) if latter successful, the redirects will fall (together with the original page histories). The first stage is directly contrary to WP:BLANK. Davidships (talk) 21:47, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

::It did seem an odd way to do things. Whether he was right or not, one person can convert an article into a simple redirect without the need for AFD or even speedy delete. That's why I sought to preserve the information, which I'd come across a year or two ago when specifically looking for Woolton (1774). Martin of Sheffield (talk) 21:59, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

• Keep. The nominator stands correct in their criticism. Even then, the conclusion to delete is wrong. These lists should be short, about 2-3 lines per ship and include REFERENCES. The references is what we NEED to merge after an AFD does not end in keep. Not entire articles because these entries are NOT regular articles in which every section is a chapter. Otherwise, the texts of the merged/redirected can be used to improve the existent description but NOT to significantly extend descriptions! These are LISTS in which the name connection is enough to list the vessels and only to list and briefly describe them! So NO to delete as this should be fixed under WP:SOFIXIT. Even so, THIS 1 AfD is justified to create a consensus around these lists. gidonb (talk) 23:42, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

::The article has been trimmed back to a normal list since writing the opinion above. So now no objection to the existence of the article and almost no problems with the execution. I would still like to have at least one reference to the historicity for each vessel. gidonb (talk) 13:24, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

:::Of course there were references to the vessels — on the pages that Fram deleted. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 14:28, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

::::Martin of Sheffield, correct. We need these (also) in the lists. One reference per vessel is the absolute minimum. Ideally, we will be able to reference each sentence through multiple sources. gidonb (talk) 21:39, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

• Keep. I wrote out stuff which was lost when I hit save, but obviously keep, anyhow. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 06:35, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
• Keep. I think we can easily underestimate the utility of these ship indexes. The existence of many vessels with the same name, at the same time, sailing in the same areas, and frequently of similar size, gives rise to confusion. I have seen references to vessels in histories of stamps, in histories of railways, biographies, in catalogs of auctions of marine paintings, in genealogies, local histories, and the like. Many people don't realize that not all British vessels are "HMS", or that two vessels with the same name are not the same vessel. I have just corrected the article on George Hibbert because the vessel {{ship||George Hibbert|1803 ship}} was not the relevant "The Hibbert" of the article. It is also important to preserve references. References don't only verify, they also point readers to where one might find more information. Acad Ronin (talk) 11:55, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
• Keep. Agree with previous comment. --Broichmore (talk) 17:28, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
• Snow Keep. As per above. No point keeping this open. Desertarun (talk) 21:44, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
• Any indication which policy allows pages where neither the group nor the individual entries are actually notable? Because this would basically allow any and all lists as long as they are verifiable and the entries have something in common. List of streets named "Rue Jean Jaurès"? There are dozens of them, and they have two things in common (the name and being a street) and are easily verifiable. What's the difference between such a list and this one? Fram (talk) 08:53, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
• Written texts often don't give the year ships are built or many details about them. They merely write Woolton, and when there are several ships with this name it becomes a headache tracking down which ship is being referred to. Ergo ~ these lists are encyclopaedic and useful academic resources. Desertarun (talk) 09:32, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
• So, no policy at all then, just WP:ITSUSEFUL? Fram (talk) 11:56, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
• See WP:CSC. Desertarun (talk) 12:39, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
• How about going with wp:con and wp:iar and just moving on? (jmho) - wolf 12:49, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
• No, not just useful, the content is also encyclopaedic, ie the kind of information expected to be found in an encyclopaedia. Similar information is widely included in this encyclopedia, in some cases there is sufficient for an individual ship to meet WP's criteria for a stand-alone article, sometimes there isn't, or sometimes an article has not yet been written. The whole point of ship name set lists (as, for example, with the lists of shipwrecks) is to present information that is available and verifiable, in a form that is useful to readers. This is reflected in a common view in AfD reviews on similar cases that, where consensus is for deletion, it should be on the basis of a merge. It is not a requirement that such lists comprise only those ships that have a fuller treatment in their own articles or elsewhere, nor is there any logic in the existance of such a list depending on the happenchance of one or more of that name having its own article. The WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST argument is no more convincing than its converse would be. Davidships (talk) 13:22, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
• Keep - I've seen from other examples what a page like this can be built into. - wolf 12:59, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
• Keep as a useful set index, per others. There is coverage of the 1885 ship [https://collections.slsa.sa.gov.au/resource/PRG+1373/5/36 here]. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 11:40, 7 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.