Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bloom (1789 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 redirect to List of slave ships. Bit of a messy discussion. There is clear consensus against a standalone article. Redirecting to Bloom (ship) has some support, but isn't a policy-based option when only one of the three ships listed there would continue to have a standalone article. Some arguments for outright deletion suggest a merger isn't needed because the content has already been merged; but best as I can tell, that's true for Bloom (ship), not the list; and we've determined that Bloom (ship) is a poor target. One argument recommends deleting this and a list, but it's unclear which list is referred to; if it's the DAB page, that doesn't change anything; if it's the list of slave ships, that's going to be a very hard sell. As such I'm redirecting to the only other target mentioned here per ATD-R, and leaving open the option of merging, but I will note that this discussion does not preclude future retargetting after a talk page discussion or RfD. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:58, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Bloom (1789 ship)

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

No evidence found of any notability, just one of the thousands of slave ships in a database (plus some primary sources). Fram (talk) 08:20, 5 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) 08:20, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. The slave-voyages website offers WP:SIGCOV. Also per WP:ATD there is a merge option here: Bloom (ship). Desertarun (talk) 09:26, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
 * It's a database, not an actual text about the ship. And merging a non-notable ship to a list of three non-notable ships is not a useful ATD, it's just an attempt to keep this at a different place even if it still suffers from the same issues. Fram (talk) 09:32, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment: The slave voyages site itself sources some information cited to a secondary source, History of the Liverpool Privateers and Letters of Marque with an Account of the Liverpool Slave Trade (London, 1897) by Gomer Williams available here. There's three pages (606-609) that deal with the Bloom, including working out what the average sale price of the slaves worth, profit to the boat's owners and some other background. Don't believe it meets GNG but its more then just a database so I felt the need to mention it as part of a WP:BEFORE hunt. --(loopback) ping/whereis 10:29, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
 * That source is actually about the previous Bllom (the 1781 ship), and discussed the 1784 voyage that ship made. So not relevant for this ship or AfD (but I understand the confusion, as the two ships had the same name and same owners). Fram (talk) 11:35, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Excellent catch! So back to the BEFORE search turning up... zero sources. Changes this from a comment to a Delete. --(loopback) ping/whereis 11:40, 5 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Merge to Bloom (ship) per the precedent at Articles_for_deletion/James_(1806_ship). The outcome there was "redirect to List of slave ships with the option of merging any encyclopedic content" and the eventual result was that the content was merged to James (ship), which was the better merge/redirect target. The same outcome is appropriate here. Jfire (talk) 04:22, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Merge to Bloom (ship) List of slave ships. I did find a paragraph in a book about the slave trade. This book has a page and a half that shows the investment shares and earnings for a slave-trade voyage. The information in these is probably not enough for a stand-alone article but will provide a solid basis for a section in the Bloom ship article. Lamona (talk) 18:12, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: There are statements in the article that are not in the sources, as far as I can tell. For example, the Elder book has three very brief mentions only. There are statements of fact with no sourcing like "A French privateer captured King Grey in 1793." In addition, I'm not at all sure what that is doing in this article. Lamona (talk) 18:01, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

please look at the dates in those two sources. These are for the 1781 ship, and not about the 1789 ship. Fram (talk) 09:07, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
 * My understanding,, was that the dates refer to specific voyages, not different ships. If that understanding is correct, then it's easily handled in the Bloom (ship) article. If we can establish that it was a different ship, then at best this information would be appropriate in the list of slave ships (actually not a bad idea, since it doesn't appear there). Lamona (talk) 16:23, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
 * If the 1789 isn't a different ship than the 1781 ship, then it should be redirected there. But it seems to be a different ship, and all sources about pre-1789 voyages are not about this one. Fram (talk) 16:35, 9 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete -- also the 1781 ship article and the list. All no doubt verifiable, but all NN.  There were 1000s of merchant ships of the period, and it would need there to be something special about any one of them to make it notable.  Peterkingiron (talk) 17:03, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete There is no indication of notability for this ship. It is sourced entirely to databases or primary sources. A merge is irrelevant because there's already sufficient information at the proposed target. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:08, 9 January 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.