Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Argo (1806 Liverpool ship)


 * 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. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 06:21, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Argo (1806 Liverpool ship)

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

No indication of any notability found. Fram (talk) 09:42, 16 January 2023 (UTC) Relisting comment: Relisting. What Merge target are you proposing Acad Ronin? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:39, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Transportation,  and United Kingdom. Fram (talk) 09:42, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete -- Another NN ship. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:44, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep So bizarre the double standards around here for notability. Every car make in history and every beauty pageant is notable but not this merchant ship that was stolen and used for slave trafficking and that sank and her crew was rescued? Crazytown. jengod (talk) 22:28, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete There is no significant coverage in reliable, secondary, independent sources to justify this article's retention. The keep "argument" above makes no policy or guideline-based arguments and I have therefore ignored it. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:39, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Merge. I would prefer to Keep, but perhaps a careful merge will limit the unnecessary destruction of information. I am still baffled to understand how destroying information makes an encyclopedia better, or makes it possible for the article to improve, but wiser, more thoughtful people than I apparently disagree.Acad Ronin (talk) 03:02, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Hi Liz, I would merge the article with the entry in the Argo ship index. Acad Ronin (talk) 23:36, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Acad Ronin, I was hoping for a link so I don't have to go searching for a page you are referring to. I look at a lot of AFDs every day. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 03:11, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Apologies. Argo (ship) Acad Ronin (talk) 03:13, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:37, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. Refs are Sigcov. Failing that merge. Desertarun (talk) 19:22, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep based on available sourcing. Failing that, Merge into Argo (ship) per WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE. gidonb (talk) 22:27, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep as there seems to be SIGCOV in Inikori (1996). Failing that, Merge into Argo (ship) per others. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 10:06, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Inikori has no coverage of Argo, it is used as a general source for the ladt two paragraphs which aren´t about Argo. Fram (talk) 12:02, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Actually, I just checked and Argo is listed in Inikori in a table of losses. To be fair, there is nothing in the listing beyond what Inikori could extract from Lloyd's List.Acad Ronin (talk) 00:51, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Keep per above. Articles like this should not be nominated for deletion, as merger to list-article is obviously superior to deletion. As i noted in another if these AFDs. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 01:09, 1 February 2023 (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.