Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/J. S. Seaverns


 * 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. (non-admin closure) — Yashtalk stalk 00:45, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

J. S. Seaverns

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Unremarkable sunk ship Nördic   Nightfury  10:35, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.  Nördic   Nightfury  10:36, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions.  Nördic   Nightfury  10:36, 14 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete - per nom, no claim of significance. Class 455  ( talk |stand clear of the doors!)  10:38, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - (Forgive me if I'm not responding correctly, this is my first deletion discussion) I have added more material to the article in an attempt to fill out the article's significance. The wreck is remarkably conserved. It has many features that other wrecks do not: anchors still on deck, the wheel still present, china still on the shelf. It's quite unique in that it is sitting upright, and is accessible to divers. Djshaw87 (talk) 15:08, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 * , Notability is not inherited. Nördic   Nightfury  21:32, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Forgive me, but I'm not certain how that applies. I'm not claiming that the Seavers is notable because it is a ship or because it is a wreck. I'm claiming that it's notable because it's the only wreck in the great lakes that is intact with dishes on the shelf--it's notable because it's a time capsule of shipping in the late 1800s. Djshaw87 (talk) 15:04, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree that it doesn't apply. Unscintillating (talk) 15:50, 18 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep Remarkable sunk ship.  Adequate sources can be found with WP:BEFORE D1 to satisfy WP:GNG.  Given the newness of the discovery, WP:SUSTAINED could be argued, but I suspect that since the existence of this wreck was known by those looking for it, that WP:SUSTAINED can be refuted just with published sources that existed before the wreck was found.  Looking some more, this shipwreck was probably notable before the recent discovery, see  which appears to report from the Cleveland Herald of Nov. 28th. 1884.  Unscintillating (talk) 15:50, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep All you have to do is click News on toolbar above to be persuades; coverage in major magazines/media in U.S. and Canada. And an aspirational diving location now creating a bit of a tourism.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:25, 21 February 2017 (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.