Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/USS SC-42

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 no consensus. Nobody apart from the nominator supports deletion, so the "no consensus" refers to the matter whether the content should be merged to the class article or retained separately. There are no directly applicable guidelines; WP:MILUNIT is an essay. I recommend that this matter be discussed at the guideline level, not in an AfD.  Sandstein  08:29, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

USS SC-42

USS SC-42 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

We have many articles all about individual frigates of sub-chaser classes. While it is obvious that individual capital ships (battleships, aircraft carriers, even "pocket battleships" aka battlecruisers) are inherently notable, are smaller ships which may have been made by the thousands and have not had any honors, notable historical events or notable crewmen? Obviously some smaller navy boats will be notable but I do not think notability is inherent. The articles mentioned are all essentially no more than copy-pasts of one another because as in any navy many boats of this class were, as it seems, mostly unremarkable in their own right. Would support a merge to SC-1 class or similar, but as that's a redlink I thought I'd leave it for AFD and an administrator to decide if notability exists here. HominidMachinae (talk) 02:45, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is the point of requesting deletion?

Well, this deletion suggestion is a pretty depressing development. I just don't understand the reasoning behind it, which seems to go against the idea that Wikipedia is for everyone and is a place where anyone can contrbute what they have information on and are interested in.

As a naval history buff, I am interested in the history of U.S. Navy ships. I find that Wikipedia has good coverage of modern ships and of historical ships of the most popular wars (the Civil War and World War II), but fairly poor coverage of ships in other conflicts. For the past couple of years I have been working on getting World War I's ships better coverage. The overlooked section patrol boats that guarded the country's coasts now mostly have their own articles, all duly accepted by the Wikiships and the World War I projects. I recently began work on the submarine chasers, which Wikipedia has left essentially uncovered. My research and its expression on Wikipedia is taking a two-prong track: (1) establish the basic stub articles for each subchaser so that I can fill in the details I am finding elsehwere in an organized fashion after I organize them and (2) researching other details of the actions of the individual submarine chasers and then including them in the stubs. Over time, I will beef up many of these articles; I expect to start that part of the effort this month. So I'd like my work left alone while I do it.

In the meantime, the stubs already have value. The articles are hardly cut-and-paste efforts from a single source. Unlike many Wikipedia ship articles which are cut-and-pastes from the Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships and nothing more, these articles combine information in several sources and available in no one source. To some extent as stubs they will be cut-and-pastes from another because they obviously have much in common and it is a waste of time to try to find infinite ways to say the same thing over and over, but they already vary with different photographs and dates of commissioning and sale or of other fates. No one source outside of Wikipedia has this all in one place, and no one class article could provide the particular information and detail of individual ship articles. The additional research I mentioned above is going to cause them to vary from one another more and more, but there is no need to hold off on creating the stub prior to getting every bit of research done; the stub is accurate, although by definition incomplete, and will become more complete over time. Rather than suggest a need for deletion, stubs invite further contribution. I will contribute more to them soon myself as I sort out the careers of individual subchasers.

As for an "SC-1 class" article? I am already planning one, and may write it this weekend. It will cover much about the design of the class and a very general summarize of operations that will neatly compliment the individual articles - which will provide detail the class article cannot. The class and individual ships articles will be linked by the ship class template I created.

Many ships with lesser combat histories than the World War I submarine chasers are covered in Wikipedia, as are many which are more obscure. So I don't see a reason to disqualify them. Some of us are interested in the smaller watercraft that do much of the fighting in wars, and I do not think anyone should presume to judge which of them merits inclusion - especially when many modern ships and craft with trivial histories are welcomed into Wikipedia without question (not to mention Wikipedia's happy inclusion of such trivial subjects as video games, fictional spaceships, minor entertainers of passing celebrity, and characters in computer simulations).

The purpose of Wikipedia is to be a collaborative effort to get information before the world in one easy-to-use place. Maybe someone will have more information on these subchasers that they can add after the articles are created. Maybe someone will research an ancestor who served aboard one of these ships, find the relevant article, and then add information or photos. Unless Wikipedia's servers are too full, I don't see a reason to delete articles which improve Wikipedia's coverage of underreported eras and issues and make them accessible to Wikipedia users in a way specialist Web sites do not. Maybe World War I is not a popular enough era? Maybe ships with numbers instead of names are just less interesting somehow?

Instead of looking for ways to limit the detail of Wikipedia's coverage of naval affairs, we should be looking to expand it. I have taken on this part of expanding it as a solo effort. I ask for no help from anyone else, but I would like to avoid having anyone try to truncate or destroy it. Over the next few weeks or months I plan to have a decent history in Wikipedia for each of the many subchasers that fought in World War I, sourced, with photos as available. To those who say "Why bother?" I can only reply "Why not?" Doing so will only help, not harm, Wikipedia and its users. Someone might look up the subchaser their ancestor served on - and then contribute information or photos once Wikipedia lets them find out more. That's the beauty of Wikipedia; deletion will destroy that possibility.

Let's put the idea of deleting subchaser articles to rest and let them develop over time. Anyone who finds them uninteresting should simply go do something else and leave them alone - not advocate their deletion. Mdnavman (talk) 03:41, 3 March 2011 (UTC)mdnavman[reply]

I should clarify that I'm not trying to limit Wikipedia, and I will be the first to thank you for your excellent contributions to our coverage of an area that is often neglected in favor of pop culture. However I am concerned that a multitude of articles on mostly-identical members of the same class would be better served by being merged into a list or into the article on the class. As it stands every article must meet notability guidelines, and as as class of ships the class is undoubtedly notable. But multiple third-party sources are unlikely to exist for every member of the class. HominidMachinae (talk) 03:55, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/USS PT-337 and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/USS Watseka (YT-387). I suppose I could dig up another dozen should the need arise. HausTalk 05:38, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Given the huge number of books on warships (including many that provide details on all ships in nation's fleets, of which Jane's Fighting Ships is but the best known, as well as many specialist works on different types of ships) all commissioned warships can be assumed to be notable. There may or may not be a case for merging the articles until they're expanded, but that shouldn't be handled through an AfD. Nick-D (talk) 07:06, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Keep To be honest there are are many more articles on tiny hamlets of certain countries that have populations smaller than the number of men who served on this ship. Chaosdruid (talk) 08:35, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Having done some searching around and looking for details I have come to the conclusion that it should be merged into a list. I also am persuaded that there are too many in this particular class to support an individual article on each, also as per EyeSerene regarding MilHist ships. Chaosdruid (talk) 20:52, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is a class article now - i.e. SC-1 class submarine chaser, but with 442 SC-1 class boats completed, if it was decided to merge the detailes of the boats where we couldn't find enough data to support a stand-alone article, it would be best to merge them to a series of lists.Nigel Ish (talk) 21:36, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to class article. Could I speak up for class histories? Much of what makes vessels of this sort interesting is the operational requirement, design, cost, equipment, deployment, assessment of effectiveness, and so forth. This can then be illustrated for readers with a list of class giving builder, launch and commissioning dates, variations from the original design, operational history, fate and date, and any other information of interest. It is the totality of that which most of us find interesting, and being forced to click through to a stand-alone article which gives nothing more than this (and sometimes less) makes it much less valuable. Of course there may be enough for a spin-off article in the case of individual vessels and there is nothing to stop that as well, but it is hardly the case here. And by the way, hamlets and other geographical features are not relevant analogies! AJHingston (talk) 09:19, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Funny, it wasn't an analogy - an analogy would have compared the two things. It was a point, there are many articles which do need deleting, such as hamlets of 30 people, and articles which need merging - yet I never see any of those up for deletion. People wanting to clean up should try looking in areas where we have 16,000 articles in one project alone, many of which are the same thing from 4 different ethnicities. Chaosdruid (talk) 12:36, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the article currently stands, merge to a parent article about the class. WP:MILUNIT (milhist's notability guideline) states that any commissioned warships are generally inherently notable but only if sufficient coverage in secondary sources exists to write a decent article. There seems to be very little information in the article that is unique to this particular ship and couldn't be covered equally well in a subsection of a general article about the class. If further information comes to light that applies only to this ship (ie the ship's service record, notable accomplishments etc) then a separate article could be created. EyeSerenetalk 09:32, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Merging might be the best thing to do, but I have no real preference one way or another.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 10:54, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge & Redirect - Merge into article regarding the class, per reasoning of EyeSerene. If this vessel is shown to be independently notable via third party sources, then it can always be spunout, and this article can be recreated. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 12:48, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: commissioned warships are inherently notable, even if they are small with short and uneventful histories. There could be an argument for merging to a class article (which doesn't exist yet), but I see no need to outright delete. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 12:51, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: lots of good points here, but Nick-D hits it on the head: there are so many compendiums of commissioned warships that you almost always have a starting point for an article. Constant trips to AfD would not be the most effective way to guide the genesis of these articles. - Dank (push to talk) 13:35, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: give it some time to develop. —Diiscool (talk) 14:01, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: It's generally agreed that commissioned warships are individually notable. Every ship will have had a different service history and career, so the articles will not be identical. Mjroots (talk) 14:24, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge (or in truth create a class article for this ship and her sisters). I agree with EyeSerene. The article does not show notability for this particular ship. That other articles (aforementioned hamlets) exist that would not pass notability either does not affect the notability of this ship under discussion here. (no doubt a Hamlet Project when questioned would point out that there are articles on tiny warships....) GraemeLeggett (talk) 16:17, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please see my note to AJHingston above, no comparison was intended for the "keep". Chaosdruid (talk) 20:52, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: there is plenty to be written about most of the individual vessels, including this one, and there are too many sources to ignore. Weakopedia (talk) 17:48, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I don't know if there is a guideline asserting the inherent notability of commissioned warships, but that seems a common-sensical standard which I would personally support. Information would be lost from deletion of this article without corresponding benefit to the Wikipedia project... Use common sense here. Carrite (talk) 18:22, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It seems to me that this most recent rash of WWI navy vessels is essentially trying to reproduce http://www.subchaser.org/ The site holds about the same amount of content on individual ships as the articles being placed on WP do. I'm a quality over quantity believer but of course each to his own. Just seems like a waste of effort to reproduce something already available elsewhere. And with 400+ SC's built during WWI I guess we'll just have that many more articles with expand tags on them. Brad (talk) 20:07, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to add that that's pretty much my point. Not much can be said about these individually, and as per WP:N Multiple sources are generally expected, and sources are expected to provide "significant coverage." That's my concern, An entry in a book that only confirms the basic data of all ships have is akin to a catalog entry: it confirms existence but not notability. Lacking any individual coverage that explains why this particular SC is notable, it is not. All articles must meet GNG. HominidMachinae (talk) 21:27, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Merge to one article about the class of ships. Little cookie cutter ships should not be granted some "inherent notability" and exemption from notability requirements. The fact that someone likes a particular type of thing does not mean that an encyclopedia must have articles about each exemplar. Only if a particular such vessel was the subject of significant coverage (not just routine coverage and directory listings) in multiple reliable and independent sources, should it have its own article. Edison (talk) 20:58, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - just had a look at List of patrol vessels of the United States Navy#SC.2C_Submarine_Chaser (there's also a navbox) so perhaps it's as well that we are getting an idea as to whether articles are appropriate for these small ships before all the redlinks turned blue. Also for comparison these Sub chasers are about the size of a Fairmile D motor torpedo boat. GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:59, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Where does it stop? How, for instance, do you determine the notability of a submarine? By how many ships she sank? The tonnage? Whether a notable officer commanded her? Whether a notable officer's son served aboard? By any of those criteria, Wahoo (fewer ships), Trigger (low tonnage), Albacore (few ships, less-known skipper), & others could all fail. That doesn't even count Dolphin or Gato, which offhand fail all these tests... Then there's Squalus, Thetis, M-1... TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 23:40, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I love ad terrorem arguments like "If they delete an article on a rowboat, next they'll delete the USS Constitution, so we must draw a line in the sand (or ocean) right here." So no, we are not presently having a deletion debate about any of the subs you mentioned, and your comments have little relevance to the present AFD. Do you wish to state a reason for keeping the present article? Edison (talk) 01:00, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment the nominator already drew the line in the sand, that is everything that is not a capital ship. (This would mean all submarines, by the way, except perhaps nuclear ballistic missile subs) 65.95.15.144 (talk) 06:31, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to clarify that that is where I draw the line for presumption of automatic notability. Of course there are smaller ships that are notable, but it is inconceivable that a battleship would NOT be notable. Obviously there are smaller ships that are notable, there are notable PT boats, notable frigates, notable ships of every size, but not all smaller ships would be notable. I dispute that ships over a certain size are automatically notable. No article gets a pass from GNG, which says multiple sources with significant coverage. HominidMachinae (talk) 09:37, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You may dispute it, but it is the generally held opinion of WP:SHIPS members, as set out in our project scope page. Mjroots (talk) 10:07, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's not so much stating that "all ships larger than xxx are notable", but that they are presumed notable if they have been commissioned by a navy. It's essentially an "innocent until proven guilty" guideline, wherein it must be proven that the article fails GNG based on significant coverage. Since US Navy ships great and small are catalogued and given significant coverage in any number of valid references (books, catalogues, the Naval Vessel Register, DANFS, and others), you'd have a hard time proving that there is insufficient coverage of this particular vessel, or probably the vast majority of them. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 13:07, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Have I found one of the Navy's smallest commissioned "ships" - USS Betty Jane I (ID-3458)? GraemeLeggett (talk) 22:02, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen smaller commissioned ships, some less than 20 feet... the launch carried by an Iowa class battleship is larger than that! bahamut0013wordsdeeds 13:18, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - According to WP:SHIPS, anything over 100 feet (30 m) length or 100t displacment is likely to be notable, while WP:MILHIST's criterion are that commissioned warships (which means anything a Navy operates as a commissioned vessel, be it Yamato or a water tender) is presumed to be notable if relaible sources can be found. If they can be found for each individual ship of a class, then by all means, each individual ship of a class should have its own article. That's one of the wonders of Wikipedia; we are WP:NOTPAPER and, therefore, don't have to worry about size or space constraints restricting our contents. Now, I'm not saying that each and every 30-ton PT-boat should have an article, but I don't see the need to start "assuming negative notability" on everything short of a battlecruiser, which the nominator seems to suggest. - The Bushranger One ping only 07:09, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's obvious that I am in a very small minority here, I'm not going to try to push a snowball uphill any further against consensus. The proper forum for a discussion about notability guidelines is not on this page, and if there are further notability concerns then request for merger can handle them rather than the blunt instrument of an AFD. I am going to start a discussion about application of notability guidelines elsewhere, as noted above there are many things that have been assumed notable, like very small villages with less people than have served on a navy ship, that need to be discussed, but AfD is not the proper venue. No one else thinks deletion is a proper option, so between merger discussions, article expansion and the project page there are more appropriate venues. Nomination withdrawn. HominidMachinae (talk) 08:47, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Whether you are in a minority or not, Afd works on strength of argument and policy, as determined by the closing admin. That said, I think this has drawn attention to an issue around notability of warships which needs to be addressed. We may yet discover that there are some out there that are not article-worthy. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:10, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge absent substantial coverage in a reliable source, i.e. a book, tv program, etc... Presence in a directory is what I call "Navin Johnson Notability": it's no different than a listing in the phone book, and no matter how many phone books I appear in, I am not notable. Merging to the class article would be one way to handle it, but having a "batch" article that covers twenty ships at a time seems reasonable enough if there is substantial verifiable information but not enough for a real article. SDY (talk) 23:42, 9 March 2011 (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/USS_SC-42&oldid=1080457636"