Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ongiara (ship, 1885)

Add links
Source: 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. Nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure) ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 17:06, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ongiara (ship, 1885)

Ongiara (ship, 1885) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about an individual Ferry (boat) fails WP:GNG as well as wp:Notability (vehicles) DBigXray 12:17, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The current references merely show existence, how is the notability established ? --DBigXray 13:16, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Nothing particularly notable/disastrous happened with this ship marine vessel. A few scattered descriptions[1] and photographs do not amount to sufficient reliable sources. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:57, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All ships about which there is sufficient information to write an article have usually been considered notable here. There's a distinction between a ship and a boat, of course, but altho a ferry, this is a ship. DGG ( talk ) 08:11, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the contrary This vehicle has been called as a Ferry, Steamer and boat in the references, never a ship. The boat finished its life cycle and was finally sunk deliberately like any other boat, nothing notable here--DBigXray 08:23, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • No offense, but the above comment ignores the convention of referring to vessels on the Great Lakes, even the very largest ships, as "boats" -- see the very extensive and reliable site http://boatnerd.com. Submarines, even the very largest that displace more than 10,000 tons, are routinely referred to as "boats". Geo Swan (talk) 15:06, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep  "The matter was obviously one of great local interest" says one of the references regarding the issue in 1899.  Notability is not temporary.  Being a matter of an international border and a religious dispute crossing an international boundary, it is also not a local story.  This article has plenty of room for expansion.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:53, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - N(Vehicles) is a de facto demoted essay; the article (barely) meets WP:GNG; notability is not temporary, and the nominator's implied claim that articles on individual ships are not needed is contraindicated by broad consensus. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:40, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The vessel is notable. I made some corrections and cleaned things up a bit. Brad (talk) 02:00, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Even if we accept the opinion in WP:N(V), it doesn't apply here. Ongiara is not “treated in secondary sources as an example of a type” (ie not just given as an example of a ferry boat), she is “treated by secondary sources as (a) distinct entity” (as are pretty much all ships) Xyl 54 (talk) 18:04, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I started this article, and a bunch of other articles on ships.

    No one ever challenges whether we should cover Naval vessels, coast guard vessels, research vessels, because, I suggest, maritime vessels are different from the vehicles the advice in the essay WP:Notability (vehicles) is aimed at.

    Some years ago I attended a conference where a speaker gave a surprisingly interesting and memorable talk on what we could learn about life in the middle ages from the extensive notes kept by the torture teams employed by the Roman Catholic Church's inquisition. The most memorable point he made is that historians have many mysteries about peoples' lives in the past because certain kinds of information seemed "common knowledge" -- and there was a tendency to not record what was considered "common knowledge".

    There is the same tendency today to not record "common knowledge". His final point about the inquisition, was that the inquisition's clerks' detailed recording of every tortured confession back then actually answered a lot of historian's questions.

    I suggest there is a class of topics, that we should cover, even if they seem "common knowledge". Topics that seem "common knowledge", are worth covering, when we have good, reliable sources, because "common knowledge" can be wrong, because this is a world-wide project, and what seems obvious to locals is opaque to readers in ohter parts of the world. Because

    When we rely on important infrastructure, like ships, ports, railways, airports, rapid transit, expressways, I suggest they are worth covering here, even if nothing out of the ordinary happened, provided we have reliable sources. I suggest even the normal functioning of important infrastructure is worth covering. The advice in the WP:Notability (vehicles), in so far as it has value, is addressed to artifacts that are (1) essentially identical to all the others in their class; (2) undertake essentially identical missions to all those in their class; (3) often they undertake routine tasks with other artifacts in their class -- fighter aircraft fly in squadrons; freight trains require multiple locomotives per train; buses keep schedules with other identical buses. An argument can be made that there is no value in individual vehicles, like this, even if they are expensive, because their missions are generally routine and repetitive.

    Ships aren't like that. Patrol vessels get called upon to perform unscheduled rescues, freighters may go to different ports, on each voyage, because they carry different cargos. Even ships like the Ongiara, which spent most of her working life on one mission, can't adequately be covered in a list article on river ferries, as each river is different. Geo Swan (talk) 13:24, 19 June 2012 (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/Ongiara_(ship,_1885)&oldid=1138184873"