Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wale

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. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 18:39, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wale

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

Does not meet the "significant coverage" or "reliable source" prongs of WP:GNG. — Bdb484 (talk) 21:38, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Not sure how the nom make their determination of this lacking significant coverage. Centuries old boat building method. It took only seconds to find very significant coverage on wales.[1][2][3][4] --Oakshade (talk) 02:50, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is a significant term in boatbuilding and is used in other contexts (retaining wall construction; corduroy; others?) as well. The article needs work but that doesn't mean it should be deleted. —Diiscool (talk) 00:40, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I may just have a higher standard for "significant" coverage. There's of course lots of books that are going to make secondary mentions of the concept of a wale in the context of some more primary topic, such as shipbuilding. But shipbuilding is the subject of the significant coverage in these books; wales are not.

In the absence of that kind of coverage, I think this is a candidate for Wiktionary rather than Wikipedia. — Bdb484 (talk) 20:32, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose the argument is that the subject need not be the focus of the source - it just has to have received significant coverage in reliable sources. So significant coverage of the subject even in the context of a book, for example, about ship building, is still considered significant coverage. In this instance, the term (and concept) are common-use enough for there to be notable derivatives. I think people are going to struggle with the suggestion that there isn't significant coverage of the subject. There are plenty of niche, colloquial, industry-specific ship building terms that aren't notable, but I don't think this is one of them. Stalwart111 12:23, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think this might have its genesis in this discussion. "Wale" is a well-known shipping/ship-building term as the sources provided above ably demonstrate. A lack of sources in the article is not the same as those sources not existing. Try to WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM before nominating for deletion. Stalwart111 10:04, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The books may cover shipbuilding, but show sources to cover wales as a subtopic. -- Whpq (talk) 16:51, 31 October 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.