Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Debark (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. It looks like this got expanded in the middle of the AfD (which means +2 internets to those involved :P), so I'm defaulting up to keep. slakr \ talk / 03:02, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Debark (ship)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Pure dictionary definition. debark covers it pretty well. Brainy J ~ ✿ ~ ( talk ) 20:05, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions.   Brainy J  ~ ✿ ~ ( talk ) 20:06, 11 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Sink per nom. Two lines that would be at home in a dictionary, not here. Changing my lvote per rationale below. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:53, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep Delete. Per Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Philg88 ♦talk 05:04, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Changing !vote to "keep" based on promised expansion. Philg88 ♦talk 07:16, 13 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep There's lot more to be said about this because disembarking from a ship or boat can be quite tricky. For a fresh example, see Norman Heathcote (pictured).  And one would think that all the recent coverage of Operation Overlord would make this clear too.  Anyway, disembarkation is a blue link and so there is scope for some merger at the very least.  This is the essential point of WP:DICDEF - that we group similar topics together; not that we should delete them. Andrew (talk) 13:02, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The article makes it clear that "debark" does not include people, which invalidates the Heathcote/Overlord premise. A one sentence mention of the term in the Landing operation article would cover the topic adequately. After the article is deleted, "debark" can be redirected accordingly. Philg88 ♦talk 14:23, 12 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:NOTDICT. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:31, 12 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Expand forthwith. That restriction appears to be made up. Debarking most definitely can include people. Also, redirecting to Landing operation is unsatisfactory, since that is strictly military. WP:WHAAOE not. I'm switching my lvote; we need an article about the unloading of cargo and people from ships, mentioning container cranes, stevedores, etc. (I'd have included gangplank too, but that uselessly redirects to Plank (wood). Yet more work to do.) Clarityfiend (talk) 14:52, 12 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep and expand per the rationales of User:Andrew Davidson and User:Clarityfiend. NorthAmerica1000 15:57, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 15:58, 12 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. The problem with "disembarkation" is that it combines Latin "dis" with "embark", French. It violates a Samuel Johnson rule about maintaining the roots of words. "Debark" was the original English word, all from French. It's "disembarkation" that is a recent "contribution" by the media or maybe the airline industry. The redirect s/b to debark IMO. Student7 (talk) 21:52, 12 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep The article has been expanded. This is notable concept the encyclopedia should have.   D r e a m Focus  06:33, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Neutral but verbs should not be used as the title of articles when there is a noun available. Deb (talk) 11:49, 13 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete Despite the above, I still don't see this as more than an overblown dictionary definition. I agree that an article on maritime cargo-handling could be useful but debark isn't it (indeed I'm not convinced about the word's application to cargo - the cite link gives a "404 error" and a cached version doesn't mention "embark"). If the consensus goes against me, then disembarkation would be a better title (which is certainly not limited to its current redirect), or is debark a particular US usage? Davidships (talk) 20:15, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * It would seem that a great many Wikipedia articles are just overblown dictionary definitions. But that is what encyclopedias do, they provide context and detail that a dictionary does not. --Bejnar (talk) 21:13, 17 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep The expanded article is not just a dictionary definition. It might be a better article if it was more inclusive such as "Embarkation and Disemarkation", or perhaps if it included aviation as well as nautical disembarkation. --Bejnar (talk) 21:13, 17 June 2014 (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.