Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/USS PT-337
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. the wub "?!" 21:08, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
USS PT-337
Prod removed without addressing required improvements to this unreferenced essay that fails WP:N and WP:V Jeepday (talk) 02:03, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as non-notable. This isn't the PT-109. Clarityfiend 02:16, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete As per nom. Nenyedi • (Deeds•Talk) 02:37, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep allowing for clean up and sources. The quite extensive information/content within the article must have come from somewhere - paper sources/periodicals/war records although less immediate and obvious than ghits could well bring this to life. I am not sure where the relevant guideline is on this but is there not a presumption of notability where a naval vessel has seen active service? Dick G 02:58, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Made a minor edit but subsequently also found this and this which whilst not irrefutbale third party sources, nevertheless give facts for when vessel laid down &c. and co-ordinates of engagement (respectively). Also, this doesn't get through my firewall but may be useful tooDick G 07:40, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep if this is verified,
Delete otherwise. Per my attempts, I could not verify even the existence, let alone the sinking.Not policy, but I'd say WW2 vessels that saw combat are notable and is something you'd find in any encyclopedia (WP:5) Corpx 04:11, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply] - Keep one of the few PT losses during WWII. I added two new links to the article that verify the boat's existence and its loss at Hansa Bay by shore gunfire. However, I could not find any evidence of the rest of the article, but I suspect a WWII expert would have access to RS to add the needed references. --Storm Rider (talk) 05:59, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, essentials easily verified on this page. The after action report should be blockquoted or whatever is usually done, but we have many ship articles that take their text directly from the US Navy website (being public domain). --Dhartung | Talk 07:14, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep In general, commissioned vessels of any navy are considered notable; however, PT boats were commissioned by squadron, not by individual boats, and so fail this test. I don't think that individual PT boats should appear as a rule (they were regarded as similar in status to airplanes), but I believe this one is notable per Storm Rider. Many naval vessel histories have originated as copies from the Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships (no entry there yet, unfortunately) or from Dhartung's history.navy.mil reference. Acroterion (talk) 14:54, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete People seem to like US and British ships, and have often argued successfully to keep every article, but where is the guideline that says every ship that was ever comissioned is notable? Seems like there should be a minimum size cutoff. Edison 04:18, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- nom Voting Delete once you remove the unreferenced (unreferancable?) essay there is nothing beyond The USS PT-337 was a PT-103 Class Motor Torpedo Boat sunk in action during the Pacific Theater of World War II in Hansa Bay, New Guinea on March 7, 1944. Which would seem to fail WP:NOT as well WP:N Jeepday (talk) 12:50, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- comment, the now-removed 'essay' is, given the detail (eye-witness account), likely taken from the 'action report' which will be available from USN records for a small fee. The link to that site is here (follow the link titled Sources of ship documents) and albeit indirectly is one of the references cited in the article. The 'essay' contains detail that wouldn't seem to warrant fabrication - not least because it doesn't make heroes of or sentationalise its subjects. I have not seen the actual report (nor am I personally going to go to the trouble of ordering it) but it is a publicly available document. Finally I wouldn't say this makes the craft 'notable' within all criteria but care should be taken when dismissing 'unreferenced' content, though I accpet the 'burden of proof' is on the original WP author to post his/her sources Dick G 14:48, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - A commissioned US Navy vessel that saw action during WWI. Content, including the "essay" that was deleted, is either verified or verifiable. --Oakshade 01:47, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The deleted content is not verified, if you beleive it is verifiable please do. It has been suggested that the content May Be sourced from US Goverment records, it is also equally possible that it May Be a complete fabrication or original research both of which are discouraged in Wikipedia. Jeepday (talk) 01:53, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You've touched on a fundamental problem with Wikipedia in regards to sources that are books or hardcopy documents that have no urls. Like Dick G said, somebody needs to check the The National Archives (or similar research source) to confirm accuracy. A vast majority of pre-internet age documentation is not accessible through weblinks. Quite sad that the content of the Dick in a Box article is immediately verifiable and the deleted content about this World War II naval vessel isn't. We've got problems, kids. --Oakshade 02:55, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- We are getting off topic here, but... That is why it is important to list references when you add the content. When someone is working a clean up project like Wikipedia:Unreferenced articles or looking references, if there are no references found and none listed, there is no way to tell if the content is pure fiction or not. Jeepday (talk) 03:05, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I have no reason to assume bad faith of the original author. It's not like someone is going to profit off the content (I suppose one can argue some WWII vet might make up material to impress his girlfriend). Again, per Dick G, the content of the deleted material appears verifiable. --Oakshade 03:18, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- We are getting off topic here, but... That is why it is important to list references when you add the content. When someone is working a clean up project like Wikipedia:Unreferenced articles or looking references, if there are no references found and none listed, there is no way to tell if the content is pure fiction or not. Jeepday (talk) 03:05, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You've touched on a fundamental problem with Wikipedia in regards to sources that are books or hardcopy documents that have no urls. Like Dick G said, somebody needs to check the The National Archives (or similar research source) to confirm accuracy. A vast majority of pre-internet age documentation is not accessible through weblinks. Quite sad that the content of the Dick in a Box article is immediately verifiable and the deleted content about this World War II naval vessel isn't. We've got problems, kids. --Oakshade 02:55, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The deleted content is not verified, if you beleive it is verifiable please do. It has been suggested that the content May Be sourced from US Goverment records, it is also equally possible that it May Be a complete fabrication or original research both of which are discouraged in Wikipedia. Jeepday (talk) 01:53, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Existence and fate of ship well documented in references to official US Navy and other sites Fg2 03:29, 21 August 2007 (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.