Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Queen of the Netherlands (ship)

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 (snowball/non admin). dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 08:43, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Queen of the Netherlands (ship)

Delete nn ship. Creator has removed PROD, and deleted article issues tags, claiming notability established. Only 2 sources given. One is a mere directory of ships, which confers no notability, the other is a chat forum, and hence not a RS. No reliable source given for the tenuous claims to notability by association with notable events Mayalld (talk) 12:47, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:V. Even if (as the article creator alleges) this vessel has participated in the cleanup after a disaster or two, where are the reliable sources which are both about the vessel and are non-trivial in nature? I'm sure there must be Some Cargo Barge that likewise participated in cleanup after 9/11, but that's not notable either. RGTraynor 12:55, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails the verifiability test; no reliable sources can back up the info here. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 13:00, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The recovery was aided by the Queen of the Netherlands, a salvage ship known as the world's largest floating vacuum cleaner, which sucked fragments of the plane off the bottom of St. Margaret's Bay, including components that were later implicated in the crash.NOVA Giant dredging ship heads for bay after protests[1] and lots more. --Dhartung | Talk 20:44, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yes, there are sources that mention the ship, but the articles are not about the ship, so they don't meet WP:N. Mayalld (talk) 21:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Being the subject of secondary sources is what's stipulated as important to notability guidelines. Those same guidelines don't require that "entire articles" must be written about a topic, but that it receives significant coverage by secondary sources, even if that coverage is within an article/book/story/report about a broader subject (being "the primary subject of..." was taken out of WP:NOTABILITY and related guidelines long ago).--Oakshade (talk) 22:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per significant secondary coverage as provided by Dhartung. --Oakshade (talk) 22:20, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is an notable and important ship for both the investigation into the Swissair 111 crash and the dredging of Port Philip Bay. Both are extremely notable issues and this ship definitely deserves to be here to back up both of those pages. Mvjs (talk) 07:43, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Canley (talk) 12:41, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A quick Google search brought up dozens or references to the ship, and yes, some about it. Involved in at least two notable events, and exactly the sort of subject Wikipedia should cover. --Canley (talk) 12:47, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Articles on individual ships are generally kept with sufficient sourcing, which this appears to have. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 18:57, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, verifiable but not notable. Stifle (talk) 20:37, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How so?--Oakshade (talk) 21:03, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:43, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A stub with four apparently RS, plus involvement per Canley — Bellhalla (talk) 03:53, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - "The world's largest floating vacuum cleaner", the subject is notable, the article is a stub, don't be defeatist - improve it ClemMcGann (talk) 08:50, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable ship playing a notable role in notable events. Benea (talk) 13:50, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ghits for "Queen of the Netherlands dredger" producers nearly 300 results. Also reports here of her involvement in the giant land reclamation schemes in Dubai. There is no hard and fast guideline about the notability of ships, some claim that any ship is notable, and one that has attracted so much attention from the world's media is quite comfortably notable. Benea (talk) 14:09, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProjects notified: WikiProject Ships and WikiProject Netherlands. — Bellhalla (talk) 14:08, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - In addition to arguments already made, notability of the topic does not equal quality of the article. A (perceived) shortage of reliable sources in an article doesn't imply that none exist. Placing a call for improvement on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Netherlands and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships would surely have sufficed. Guido den Broeder (talk) 14:31, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sufficiently notable. Article is a stub but that will change over time and is not reason for deletion. Arnoutf (talk) 14:38, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keepi agree with Arnoutf. it is a stub and should instead be marked as one not deleted.ANOMALY-117 (talk) 17:45, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above arguments: several reliable sources, participation in high-profile events, surely passes WP:N. Parsecboy (talk) 18:08, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Anything termed as colorfully as "world's largest floating vacuum cleaner" is worth having an article about. doncram (talk) 02:08, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Adequately notable, in the process of expansion. Davido321 (talk) 10:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep significant coverage by multiple reliable sources. Meets the core content policies of verifiability, no original research and neutral point of view. EJF (talk) 16:57, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the snowstorm above - plenty of sources to establish notability and verify information. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:01, 3 May 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Keep - as one of the editors with of the Australian Maritime History project the information given I would view as so far is sufficient - and a call for improvement at that particular project page would be far more appopriate - Satu Suro 05:23, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - numerous references in the Melbourne newspaper The Age - link in relation to the useo f the ship on the Port_Phillip_Channel_Deepening_Project. Wongm (talk) 04:51, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per source provided by Dhart. Five Years 11:48, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As multiple references have now been supplied. --Brad (talk) 19:24, 4 May 2008 (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.