Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/S/V Rembrandt van Rijn

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. Sandstein 09:34, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

S/V Rembrandt van Rijn

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

PROD removed by article creator. However, these boats are relatively small and I just don't see a reason that they're notable. Ego White Tray (talk) 15:17, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at first glance I find a lot of references to this subject in a google search. However, upon investigation I find that most are basic statistic pages and/or promotional in nature for chartering the craft. With that, I read the article as it is written and it seems to be so much more promotional in nature. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a source of free advertising. Therefore, I believe the article should be removed.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:32, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Google searching is not the be-all and end-all of sourcing. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:27, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Most is not all, as I've shown. WP:SHIPS/R has many useful sources for ship related searches. Mjroots (talk) 23:50, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Google isn't the be-all and end-all of sourcing. It is, however, all that is necessary under wp:BEFORE - and to say that because they didn't go through every single check possible or through every book listed on the WP:SHIPS/R page is to IMO not stick to wp:AGF. And it's to massively extend wp:BEFORE in ways that aren't justified by the policy itself. Neonchameleon (talk) 14:59, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

`:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me What did he do now? 15:36, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - two ships as part of a fleet, no notability for either that I see. Neonchameleon (talk) 19:35, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:ITSNOTNOTABLE. What does being part of a fleet hav eto be with anything?- The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:27, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - two minutes search reveals that Rembrandt van Rijn was built in 1924 and has been lengthened twice. The ship is easily in excess of the 100'/100t threshold at which it is held that ships should be capable of sustaining an article subject to being able to meet WP:GNG. It seems to me that it is likely that this article can be bashed into shape. Was WP:BEFORE followed? Article needs improvement but that is not a reason to delete it. Creator would appear to be relatively inexperienced and not a native English speaker. I'll have a bash at improving the article tomorrow. Mjroots (talk) 23:16, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't believe the article should be deleted because it simply needs improvement. I believe it should be deleted because it violates WP:ADV which can be a valid reason for deletion. But if it gets fixed and turns out to be notable, then I'd change my position. But not before.--Paul McDonald (talk) 23:54, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've made a start. Got a family gathering this afternoon so will work on it later if not too tipsy! Mjroots (talk) 11:47, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clear failure of WP:BEFORE and apparently of WP:NOTCLEANUP. In addition to the information mentioned by Mjroots, the first ship is written up in Chapman Great Sailing Ships of the World, and given its age it is clearly a case where there are additional offline sources, that, it should be reminded, need only exist per WP:V. On the second, I point to the No.wiki page on the vessel, which indicates it has, in fact, had quite a career... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:27, 21 December 2013 (UTC) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:27, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Interesting sources you seem to think should have been in wp:BEFORE to prevent it being nominated for deletion. The Dutch Wikipedia is pure advocacy, has no references at all and provides two links - both of them appear to be owned by the owners of the ship. If I knew the Dutch I'd probably PROD that page for being quite so blatant. It also resorts to padding out the page with things such as the meal schedule, and saying it has had "quite a career" isn't how I read that page. The Charterworld source is not remotely independent. The Chapman source would appear to consist solely of vital statistics and a picture (and doesn't show up in the relevant Google Books search). Mjroots mentioned a 100ft/100 ton threshold - which doesn't appear anywhere I can see in wp:GNG or wp:SHIP - the latter should probably be amended for that. Now I agree with you about wp:NOTCLEANUP here - and Mjroots appears to be fixing the article (it's already almost unrecognisable - and wouldn't appear to need much more to meet wp:HEY). Neonchameleon (talk) 14:53, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- - Comment the recent changes fail to even assert notability. Why is it notable? Gotta be more to it than "it's a big boat", right?--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:08, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment Good point. On looking closer the Rembrandt van Rijn re-write appears to be an attempt to save the articles from deletion using wp:BOMBARD. Of the nine sources currently listed five are entries on Lloyds Register of Shipping, and a further three are referring to nothing more notable than the number the ship holds and that it has remained unchanged. The ninth, the pdf, is a simple listing saying who has owned it and when it's been converted - and nothing that amounts to non-trivial coverage so far as I can tell (a quick google finds Photomaasluis to be a photographer). What has either ship done that's notable Neonchameleon (talk) 19:43, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - All nine sources are independant of the subject. Shipping registers easily meet WP:RS. As far as I can tell, Photomaassluis is a WP:SPS, but would appear to also be reliable - data given there is borne out by RSs. I resent the accusation of BOMBARD; from my reading of that, it means just piling on references to existing text, not expanding the article from new sources. Mjroots (talk) 20:05, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment Reliability is one thing. I'm confident the boat exists and I have no reason to doubt the measurements and specific details. What makes it notable?--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:16, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        Commment The question isn't about whether the shipping registers are reliable. Shipping registers tell you that boats exist. Not something that is in dispute. You could have done that with a single reference. What you have failed to do is show why the ship is notable. Yes, you have independent sources to show that you have a 100 foot long sailing vessel that goes places. But you have failed to answer why that is notable. Or to show anything more in depth than the depth of the ship herself. And it's not notable for a ship to end up in Lloyds Register, to be photographed, or to have a number. It's the lede that's entirely lacking in substance. Neonchameleon (talk) 20:34, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        There's a big tag at the top of the article that says it is under construction. The lede will be attended to in due course. What makes any vessel notable? For the big ocean liners it's easy to answer. For cargo ships, particularly the smaller ones, it's not so easy. However, some of them have had varied and interesting careers. It's only by researching their history and telling their story that we can show that these vessels are notable enough to have articles, iff they can meet GNG. You say I've not done enough yet to make you change your mind. Fair enough, but there's more to come. After all is said and done, it's one person, one !vote and the closer will weigh up the arguments for and against deletion when closing. Mjroots (talk) 20:56, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        Notability - I know of a few ships that have been lengthened, and fewer that have been shortened. This ship has been lengthened three times. The change of IMO Number is also a rarity. I don't know of any other ships that have had a change of IMO number (which doesn't necessarily mean that this is a unique event). Both of these facts added together must give weight to the case for notability. Mjroots (talk) 21:24, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        Rarity does not equal notability. (C'mon, man, gimmie a crumb... seriously, I like to keep stuff).--Paul McDonald (talk) 23:04, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        I've done what I can. WP:SHIPS have been notified of this AfD. Mjroots (talk) 09:29, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per WP:HEY and WP:GNG, which I think I've demonstrated by now. I've put the bare bones of the history of the ship in, and will look to expand the article further from other sources. Mjroots (talk) 20:05, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not changing my mind - The article has been fleshed out all right - with trivial details that barely pass the significance test (such as listing when engine rework was done), supported by sources that don't provide any notability - Lloyd's and most other sources for the article list data on every ship ever made, and therefore can never indicate notability about a ship, and no sources given do. Ego White Tray (talk) 02:49, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Neither ship is small, actually they are quite large for sailing vessels. Noorderlicht is a former naval ship of Germany and thus notable as per WP:MILUNIT. Rembrandt van Rijn is notable as one of the last veteran sailing ships still working. I can't find that the fact that these ships are operated by a cruise line featured disproportionally in the articles. ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 15:57, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Mjroots. Manxruler (talk) 23:21, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment after all the changes, I still see no measure of notability achieved. What's so special about this particular boat/ship/sailing vessel?--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:15, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you name another ship that has - Had four different engines, been lengthened three times and had two IMO Numbers? Mjroots (talk) 20:27, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Nope. I know very little about ships. Are you saying that this ship is notable because it's a clunker that keeps needing repair? It may be unique. What makes it notable?--Paul McDonald (talk)
Keep both: Each vessel is a historic ship (in one case over a century old, having served in the German navy), and active as a passenger vessel in the expedition cruise market. Those interested in expedition cruise market and historic sailing vessels would expect to find these ships in WP. Some of the above discussion is more appropriate to a general re-discussion of the assessment of notability for ships; if that is necessary it is perhaps more appropriate for the talk page of WikiProject Ships or elsewhere.Davidships (talk) 02:08, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep at least Noorderlicht. In addition to being a former Imperial German Navy ship and everything, Noorderlicht has become a kind of a local feature in Svalbard during the main tourist season. People know it, they talk about it and go to see it from Longyearbyen. At least locally, it is thus in my eyes notable. About the other article, I have no opinion, but seems okay to me. However, I'm against using slash (/) in the article titles. Perhaps we could drop the prefix and use a parenthesis if disambiguation is needed? Tupsumato (talk) 15:29, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep S/V Noorderlicht as a former military vessel, no strong opinion on S/V Rembrandt van Rijn but leaning toward keep. — Huntster (t @ c) 01:33, 28 December 2013 (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.