Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mariam (ship)

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 keep. -- Cirt (talk) 04:29, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mariam (ship)

[edit]
Mariam (ship) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Until the ship does something, I don't believe it rates an article. It 'intends to deliver aid to Gaza'. I intend to climb Olympus Mons on Mars someday.-- Syrthiss (talk) 11:33, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Shouldn't this be a paragraph on Free Gaza Movement?AMuseo (talk) 17:46, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • That's not a bad suggestion. I'm somewhat on the fence for now--the existence and importance of the ship is (or can be) pretty well established by reliable sources, though I'm not entirely sure yet whether it's enough for a stand-alone article. I hope that future comments here and possible additions to the article will clear up whether there's more than what we have now--a ship with a goal. Drmies (talk) 18:43, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete speculation and NN. In the news for what it might be though nothing notable has happened yet. --Shuki (talk) 22:37, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, the mere fact that the BBC, the Jerusalem Post, and the New York Times report on it (not to mention all the other media outlets easily found here) suggests that you are incorrect. If it is in the news for what it might be doing, then the thing it might be doing is notable; it's as simple as that. Drmies (talk) 01:51, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to a more appropriate article, be that 2007–present blockade of the Gaza Strip or Free Gaza Movement. The news reports are really about the effort to break the blockade. The ship itself is rather incidental, and, to my knowledge, it has no goals in and of itself (with apologies to Drmies and Syrthiss). 69.181.249.92 (talk) 22:57, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No disrespect intended - perhaps I should have said the ship's name is incidental to this story. Of course she's important in her own right, but probably not notable enough from a WP perspective based on the available references. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 02:51, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
None taken! Drmies (talk) 04:54, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Sorry 69 and Syrthiss, but I gave it some thought and I'm not entirely with you on this one. I think the plethora of media coverage counts for something, even taking into account 69's very valid argument, just above this remark. I also think, and a (small) expansion to the article might cover this, that there is something about the name of the ship: this is, after all, a "female" expedition and so I believe the name is not accidental. I hope quietly that someone interested in women activism will come along and add that material. If this vote does not go towards keep, I would ask for a merge and a redirect--as a search term it seems pretty notable, and the now well-sourced (if I may say so myself) content could go into the article suggested by 69. And if even that won't fly, please stick it in my user space among the bacon articles and I'll put it in somewhere. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 16:31, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per long-estalished WP:SHIPS convention that ships are notable enough to sustain individual articles. Mjroots (talk) 18:41, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Free Gaza Movement. There is essentially nothing about the ship itself in this article, and never mind the fact that essentially nothing has happened yet. Mangoe (talk) 19:05, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as Mjroots notes: per long-established WP:SHIPS convention that ships are notable enough to sustain individual articles. A separate article makes it possible to disambiguate the ship, which has changed name, and add other information regarding the ship's history besides this one proposed voyage. Djembayz (talk) 23:30, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Plenty of reliable and verifiable sources here establish notability. Alansohn (talk) 00:56, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per long standing practice at afds on the notability of ships, independent of their involvement in current events. Benea (talk) 15:50, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can somebody point me to the page that outlines this long standing convention? I've looked through the project page and don't see anything like that. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 17:34, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
69, there has not yet been a ship article that was deleted at AfD to the best of my knowledge. This is why we say that ships are inherently notable. Examples of ship articles being kept at AfD are many, they include SS John Stagg, and also SS Timothy Bloodworth, which is now an A-class article.User:Mjroots
MergeThat is a remarkable argument. There have been millions of ships in the history of the world, but few small cargo vessels have Wikipedia pages. If we are keeping this because we keep all ships, then let's have some information like, how many tons, where built, what kind of hull, engine, equipment. What routes it worked, who has owned it, previous names, and all the rest of the information that WP notable ships have on their pages. If, on the other hand, we are keeping this because this otherwise insignificant, small, ordinary, cargo vessel was involved in a notable incident, the incident has to occur. So far we have an announcement of intention that caused a press flurry in the context of the Free Gaza Movement. At present, it is doubtful that the ship will ever sail. Therefore, it should be merged, probably into [[Free Gaza Movement. And it can be made into an article if and when a notable incident occurs.AMuseo (talk) 14:06, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Of the two examples given, it is quite helpful to the inclusionists that that someone has published a book cataloging every Liberty ship in detail. What we have in this case is more the nautical equivalent of WP:ONEEVENT. And as AMuseo says, the article doesn't say anything significant about the ship, other than the most basic dimensional data. Mangoe (talk) 15:52, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
comment Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships is certainly a wonderful page, and there is no bdoubt that the members have written some fascinating articles. However, I can find nothing on the page in the nature of a "long-established WP:SHIPS convention that ships are notable enough to sustain individual articles:. Certainly many ships are. But it cannot be true that every ship is. I wirte many articles on individual buildings. But by no means would I maintain that every building is notable by definition.AMuseo (talk) 17:05, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The claim of costlessness is dubious, but in any case it does not seem to me that any useful information (unless you intend to engage the vessel for actual shipping, and at the moment she appears to be otherwise occupied) would not appear in the paragraph that would result were this to be mereged back to the article on the conflict in question. Mangoe (talk) 02:25, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was reacting to the current version, which is too long and has too much background info to be merged into the Gaza sailings article. That one can establish the history of the vessel as comprehensively as the article does suggests that several different sources thought the details worth recording. That one person cannot think of any use for the information presented other than chartering does not mean that others may not find some of the the information useful, or simply interesting. (Part of the pleasure of using Wikipedia is finding all sorts of useless info, such as most of the stuff in the DYK hooks.) Furthermore, I, for one, can image a reporter ornamenting the story of the relief voyage, should it take place, with details from the article. I cannot even guess what some researcher 50 years from now might find useful. Again, the Wikipedia default should be, "Don't throw away info". Cheers, Acad Ronin (talk) 12:36, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notability is clearly established. Gillyweed (talk) 10:16, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment I invite the editors who have worked so hard to improve this article to help edit an article for the Avrazya, the ship that was hijacked by Islamist militants in the Black sea in 1996 Black Sea hostage crisis.AMuseo (talk) 16:36, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep more than ample reliable and verifiable sources about the subject are provided to establish notability. Alansohn (talk) 01:11, 31 August 2010 (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/Mariam_(ship)&oldid=1069022457"