Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adele (1906)


 * 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. Withdrawn. I commented on this, but I don't think there's any problem with closing this given that the nom has withdrawn it. Black Kite 16:37, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Adele (1906)

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Does not meet notability guidelines. Also is a cookie cutter article that would need substantial editing to become encyclopedic. Not all sources apply to the page, as evidenced by the dates in the book titles. (talk) 05:52, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

*Copyvio issue Is there any information in any of these articles that isn't directly lifted from the publications listed? . Fixed. Keep. Black Kite 13:34, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep; bogus rationale. Per Notability, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." This ship clearly does meet that criterion. It is covered in the sources listed, and is also covered in Herman Gill's History of the Royal Australian Navy. Contrary to the rationale given, all dates in the book titles listed intersect with the period of this ship's existence i.e. 1906–1943. Hesperian 06:01, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep notability proved by publications. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:13, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - While I don't doubt that the wreck is mentioned somewhere in the set of literature mentioned there currently is no indication of any substantial specific coverage. Actually there isn't any substantial content at all and it is difficult to imagine how this can be expanded if there is only a set of generic bibliography and links that are essentially the same as for a set of similar stubs. E.g of the three on-line sources, two are a search page respectively a contents page and one merely has one sentence ("Adele. Steel screw steamship, 288 tons. #123022. Built Great Britain, 1906; reg. Adelaide, 3/1907. Lbd 145 x 22.4 x 13.2 ft. Struck the breakwater at Port Kembla and declared a total loss, 7 May 1943.") Unless someone can actually come up with a source that contains more, this goes against the idea of wikipedia not being a directory of all known shipwrecks.--Tikiwont (talk) 10:02, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you thank a ship could be wrecked in a port and not make the newspapers of the day? Hesperian 11:17, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, from the quote above, I would not have wanted to speculate. Let me also clarify that with expansion I mean more than combining a few short mentionings in specialized sites and data directly from registries. Some reliable sources that has done that already and e.g. clarified some facts whether the ship was bought in 1915 or requisitioned in 1939 such as the one provided now does, so I m happy to strike.--Tikiwont (talk) 13:09, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, the article can be expanded quite easily using the Lloyds Register entry for 1930 Mjroots (talk) 11:03, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * is a cookie cutter article that would need substantial editing to become encyclopedic - the solution to that is to substantially edit the article instead of putting it up for deletion. The ship served with the Royal Australian Navy under two different names in two different wars. Nothing a little searching couldn't uncover. Mjroots (talk) 13:53, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep Nomination does not meet deletion guidelines. I have added a good source - only took a minute. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:42, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete Wikipedia is NOT a directory, and this guy has created at least a dozen identical one line articles with the identical sources. It has no EV, I could find out more, faster with a google search. The fact that he is able to create this many articles this quickly in and of itself is an indication of how little effort he put into it. I could churn out crap articles just as quickly, say 200 articles on unnotable car crashes on US1. It would have the same EV, except boats have the benefits of names. If his argument is that this boat has something special, he has to justify the other ones too. (Speak) 16:16, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep- Notability proven, looks like a competent article on a notable subject to me. Umbralcorax (talk) 16:19, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Withdraw Nomination
For the record, the article I nominated for deletion was certainly not this one.


 * Keep Wow, cleared my cache and saw the new work. The magic of Wikipedia. I go to sleep and the article is two lines, I wake up and it's a full fledged article. I withdraw my nomination. (speak) 16:29, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 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.