Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iuventa


 * 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 merge to Jugend Rettet. There were two "keep" !votes (not counting a repeated !vote by ), one "delete" (the nom), and two "merge" !votes. One of the "keep" !votes was not really based in policy (size and cost are immaterial to determine notability). Some of the arguments of Matthiaspaul were convincingly rebutted by. Taken together, I see a majority arguing that a stand-alone article is at this point not warranted, but there obviously is consensus that at least some information needs to be preserved. A merge to the article of the parent organization therefore seems to be the best solution. Randykitty (talk) 17:48, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Iuventa

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Really the ship is less notable then its captain. Slatersteven (talk) 17:34, 4 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep A ship this size and cost is notable. Please consider stripping the primary reference to their webpage.  This can be seen as promotional.  Cheerio042 (talk) 18:47, 4 July 2019 (UTC)  Striking account blocked as a sock. Britishfinance (talk) 16:12, 7 July 2019 (UTC)


 * What size and cost, that is such a notable feature we do not even mention it, so cannot compare it to similar vessels.Slatersteven (talk) 08:50, 5 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Merge to Jugend Rettet. There's just no notability independent of the topic, this is about the usage of the ship / events around it so a merge to suitable article is prudent. Sources are WP:PRIMARYNEWS, and we're WP:NOTNEWS . Widefox ; talk 19:05, 4 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep The ship has gone under recent investigation and is notable for its rescue/controversy. Also, per Cheerio, the ship's size and cost is notable. AmericanAir88(talk) 19:18, 4 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Notability is not WP:NOTINHERITED from Jugend Rettet, the captain or event (which we don't have an article on), and per (the blocked sock Cheerio) the notability based on cost is curious as both this and the German article don't have a cost, the notability based on size (only 32m) is an argument to avoid per WP:BIG . Widefox ; talk 16:28, 9 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Ignoring the fact that Cheerio has been banned as sockpuppet account, why in the world would even in theory the cost of the ship be notable? EllsworthSK (talk) 22:04, 10 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Weak merge to Jugend Rettet (changed to Keep - see below). There's a lot of in-depth international coverage of the vessel . I was going for Keep, but find that almost all of the coverage is connected to the seizure event, which being already covered, suggests WP:SINGLEEVENT. (This ignores any existing ship-specific notability guidelines or usages which I'm probably not aware of.) -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:26, 4 July 2019 (UTC)


 * WP:SINGLEEVENT applies to people, not to things (like ships), however I do see your point. However, the coverage I could find is connected to sea rescue in the Mediterranean Sea, but not specifically to the seizing event on the 2 August 2017 (or consequences of it). In fact, at least three independent documentaries have been produced by reporters during guest stays on the ship at various times in 2016 and 2017. So, we have independent coverage (as far as this is possible with footage filmed live on site) and coverage of multiple events. And we have plenty of sources discussing the topic. In my opinion, this establishes independent notability of the ship as well.
 * --Matthiaspaul (talk) 22:27, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The documentaries are indeed a good argument - at least two of them are largely or entirely pre-seizure. Good find. Changing to keep. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 23:55, 9 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment: If at all helpful, there is a German Wiki page on this subject. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 19:41, 7 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Maybe, maybe not per WP:OTHERLANGS. Widefox ; talk 16:28, 9 July 2019 (UTC)


 * It is helpful in that it provides a number of pre-summarized sources - but it's clear that there are plenty of these, anyway. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:32, 9 July 2019 (UTC)


 * After seeing the sources there, although I see a parallel with Rainbow Warrior (1955) but just a lot, lot less notable, currently, and less iconic with the movement, easily handled in the (small) orgs topic just like Sea-Watch (ship) #1 #2 (Sea-Watch 2 actually has an article, but redirect needed fixing to target it) #3. Only time will tell if the ship will be as notable as the three Rainbow Warriors, rather than the Sea-Watches which are directly related to this. Widefox ; talk 17:14, 9 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep. I am aware of (and have added to the article) at least three independently filmed documentaries (one filmed between 2016 and 2017 by Michele Cinque and others for the Iuventa cinema film, one filmed in 2017 by Tanja Karrasch for RP Online, and one filmed in 2017 by Carsten Behrendt for ZDF (there might be more). Depending on discipline, they would be regarded as either primary or secondary sources, in either case, they are independent of the Iuventa crew and Jugend Rettet. The two TV productions definitely do not cover the 2 August 2017 event at all, and most probably this also holds true for Cinque's film as he left the ship before (but I haven't seen that film myself yet, so I don't know if the event is covered or not). However, we have independent coverage of multiple events over a span of more than a year, that is, basically over the whole period of time the Iuventa was actually operated by Jugend Rettet.
 * We also have the 2018 forensic analysis by the Goldsmiths, London-based team of researchers around Charles Heller and Lorenzo Pezzani, which definitely covers the event.
 * This, combined with the many other sources available discussing topics around the ship (the ship itself, the various missions, the organization, some of the crew members, and various other topics related to this) I see WP:GNG fulfilled.
 * Additonally, while we don't have a ship-specific notability guideline, the Wikiproject typically attempts to cover ships longer than 30 m.
 * Per WP:PAGEDECIDE we are therefore free to decide if we want to discuss the ship in a separate article, or combine this into the Jugend Rettet article. Since the ship has a history before it became the property of Jugend Rettet (and which would not belong into the Jugend Rettet article) and probably it will have one afterwards, I find it more suitable to keep the ship-related info in a separate article.
 * --Matthiaspaul (talk) 22:27, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * All of which is about the actual topic Jugend Rettet with the ship a central part of it, better handled with it per PAGEDECIDE. This ship was not notable before, just a fishing vessel and even where it was built doesn't have an article (I created a redirect for it). We have two sentences about previous use, easily handled in the article. Future use is WP:CRYSTAL. There's no article size reason to split a stub and a start with this much overlap per WP:SPINOUT, readers are better served without the central part of the org's topic removed, and the org/event info duplicated, just to include two sentences of previous use. Widefox ; talk 00:49, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Please read wp:n.Slatersteven (talk) 08:49, 10 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Merge to Jugend Rettet per WP:NOTNEWS. There is not sufficient notability to the ship itself, but only to organization. Ship hasnt charted in years and just as we dont have article each of three Sea Watch ships, but only for Sea Watch organization there is simply no long-term notability that can be subscribed to this. The documentaries are not a good argument as their center-piece is organization activity, with ship being rather irrelevant. Given that Rainbow Warrior has been bombed by French special forces specifically, it doesnt hold a candle, especially in terms of notability.


 * Lastly, the sources of this article are atrocious. Blogspot? The crew members are not under trial and if Source 5 would be WP:RS, which it is not, it wouldnt claim it. Even if the article would be notable, which it isnt, I would be for either complete deletion or some serious re-work. Eg thereby invalidating the Italian public prosecutor's allegations. Person who added that part should go back and re-read WP:NPOV. EllsworthSK (talk) 21:59, 10 July 2019 (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.