Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/USS Watseka (YT-387)

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. W.marsh 15:56, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

USS Watseka (YT-387)

Unremarkable Navy tugboat, biggest claim to fame is that it's one of the Naval vessels named for a woman (a Native American woman that is). Lars T. 17:19, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not a naval directory. Stifle (talk) 20:51, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep encyclopedic topic along with the other articles in Category:United States Navy tugs. Fg2 10:47, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And why exactly would they be? Unless they say anything but "Was build, tugged some Navy ships, then was sold for scrap", dump them all into a list without links. Lars T. 01:26, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unless there is something significant about her. My view would be that any major warship (destroyer or larger) deserves its own article, but that otherwise undistinguished historical tugs etc should be listed on a class page. The Land 14:08, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- traditionally, commissioned naval vessels (in the U. S. Navy, those designated with a "USS") have been considered inherently notable. We presently have 100+ tugs listed in Category:United States Navy tugs and 2 sub-categories.
- I have left a message at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Maritime warfare task force‎#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/USS Watseka (YT-387) asking for their opinion on the notability question.
- I searched for "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/USS" using both Wikipedia's built-in search and Google and found only these precedents (the only other hits were for obscure fictional ships and starships), which all closed as keep:

--A. B. ^(talk) 14:19, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not useful precedents. One is a destroyer (a major warship). One is a patrol boat, but one which at least saw action. In the third, the AfD was very brief with comments like 'started by a troll'. The present case is a minor naval vessel which seems to have spent its career shunting ships around harbour. The Land 14:26, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are two implicit precedents here: #1 there have been only 3 AfDs of any commissioned ships and #2 there are a ton of other Navy tug articles that have been around unmolested for a long time and edited by a number of editors. --A. B. ^(talk) 14:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Commissioned naval vessels are inherently notable. TomTheHand 14:37, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletions. —FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 13:11, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per TomTheHand et al Benea 14:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per TomTheHand. Commissioned ship in any Navy is notable. Jinian 14:51, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Serving as a commissioned ship in any major world navy is notable for any vessel. --Kralizec! (talk) 15:31, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion - after this AfD, regardless of the outcome, if you think we should reexamine the notability of really little ships like tugs (which I think is a fair question), then I suggest raising the issue at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Maritime warfare task force‎ for discussion and consensus as to how to handle them (there may be certain classes to keep and others to just put into a list for instance based on tonnage) Then they could all be treated the same in a systematic way. FWIW, I'm not sure the U.S. Navy still considers its tugs as commissioned vessels except perhaps the big ocean-going tugs (which may have all been transferred to [[United States Naval Ship|USNS status). I certainly think notability is a legitimate question however I continue to think this article should be kept pending a broader discussion (outside the AfD process) of all small auxiliaries. --A. B. ^(talk) 16:19, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very sensible. I have a book with information on every ship which served in the Imperial Japanese Navy, down to the last patrol boat and 'miscellaneous craft': I think it would be sensible to talk about it before unleashing every single one on its own article. The Land 19:51, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It makes Wikipedia more useful if there are articles about all naval vessels.--Toddy1 04:24, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unless there is something significant about her. Trekphiler 08:16, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability thresholds for military units have occasionally been a vexed issued on the Military History Wikiproject, but the convention is that all ships commissioned into a national navy are automatically notable. While discussing this again wouldn't hurt, I'd lean towards maintaining this convention in line with Wikipedia not being a paper encyclopedia. This is clearly an excellent test case for the notability threshold as the only reason the tug is notable is because it was commissioned. -- Nick Dowling 09:29, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - What it comes down to then: Is this a commissioned ship or is it a commissioned boat? And are commissioned boats also automatically notable? Lars T. 18:27, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How are you defining "boat"? Many would call the watercraft on the left in this picture a "boat" and the one on the right a "tug". --A. B. ^(talk) 01:30, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per A. B. Edward321 02:50, 14 November 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.