Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James (1806 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 with the option of merging any encyclopedic content. I shouldn't have to say this, but I will, for the benefit of the peanut gallery; this discussion isn't about slave ships in general, or about the list of slave ships, or about establishing precedent for all slave ships: it's about whether or not we keep a standalone article on this particular slave ship. Some arguments to keep are entirely non-specific to this article and not based in policy; I am setting them aside completely. The other arguments to keep hinge on the database of slave ships: no other substantive secondary source has been provided. I believe the Slave ship database is admissible as a source; it is far more detailed than anything we usually refer to as a database at AfD. Nonetheless, the argument to keep involved WP:IAR, as it's suggesting that that the criterion of multiple sources in WP:GNG should not be enforced. I do not dismiss this argument; we can certainly make exceptions if consensus is found. To keep a standalone article, however, we need not only evidence of notability, but evidence that the content cannot be reasonably presented as part of a larger topic. The arguments to keep are substantively weaker on this issue. The argument has been made that slave ships were crimes against humanity that need to be preserved for the historical record. I don't think anybody here disputes this principle; but there's no reason that preservation can't happen in a list, rather than in a standalone article. What pieces of this article are actually encyclopedic and specific to this ship? Finally, at least one !vote noted that the list itself is not currently very detailed. This is a fixable issue, and I suggest that if anyone wanted to devote their time to improving our coverage of this topic, they do so with the overview list, rather than on pages that have very little available information. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:50, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

James (1806 ship)

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

No evidence or indication of why this would be a notable ship. Note that Inikori, the only substantial non-database source, is not about this ship but a general one. Fram (talk) 11:39, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and United Kingdom. Fram (talk) 11:39, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. There are 8 refs already in this article and even a cursory glance at both slave voyage references shows that 70 enslaved people died on this ship. If 70 people died on a ship today it would likely be worldwide news. There is already a lot of content here and a lot more could be added. Desertarun (talk) 11:52, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * 8 references, none of them with anything approaching significant attention though. The remainder is some new approach to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS apparently: many things which were hardly news at some time in the past would be big news today, and vice versa. There were thousands of slave ships trips, and on most of them a significant percentage of slaves died. This is terrible, but that doesn't mean that somehow all these voyages or ships become notable. Please read WP:N, the parts about significant independent coverage, secondary sources, and so on. Sources like this or this are reliable sources (assuming we can be sure they deal with the same ship all the time), but don't confer any notability, no matter if you have one of these or 100. Oh, and totally irrelevant, but (310-279=31) and (246-221=25), and 31+25= 56, not 70. Fram (talk) 13:21, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * You wrote: "8 references, none of them with anything approaching significant attention". My reply: the article passes WP:BASIC with multiple mentions in reliable secondary media. Desertarun (talk) 14:07, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:BASIC is about the notability of people, this is a ship. Fram (talk) 14:13, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Well OK, but for a 200+ year old ship, this is still a lot of coverage. A historian could very easily take all this data and turn it into a whole book. Desertarun (talk) 14:24, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * ???? Most of the coverage are contemporary, primary sources from 200 years ago and extremely short. The only recent "coverage" is the slaveship database, that's it. That a historian could "very easily" (or even with lots and lots of effort) write a whole book from this is extreme hyperbole. They wouldn't be able to write and publish a 3-page paper based on these sources alone. Fram (talk) 14:34, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * It's not hyperbole, it's a historian doing their job. Desertarun (talk) 14:38, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * You know what, let's make it easy: first a historian writes that book, and then we can have this article. Should only be a short wait surely? Fram (talk) 14:42, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Nah, it's more interesting to do things the normal wikipedia way. Creating content line by line - sometimes one line a decade. Desertarun (talk) 14:46, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The normal wiki way is not to have an article until independent, reliable, secondary sources have written at length about the subject, not just included it in news reports or databases. Fram (talk) 14:50, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Lightburst (talk) 20:51, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Lacks in-depth coverage in a sufficient number of sources, as is needed to meet WP:GNG. MrsSnoozyTurtle 00:14, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I wish you did not just do drive-by ivotes. You ivote on all ARS project submissions but you never do a single thing to try to improve any of the articles. It is not possible to rescue an article in this way. Lightburst (talk) 04:39, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
 * This article cannot be improved to meet GNG, because it is not notable. You're asking the impossible. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:01, 10 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep While the note on WP:GNG states that databases do not constitute evidence of notability for the purposes of article creation the reference Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade - Database is far more than a trivial mention and fulfills significant coverage which addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content Lyndaship (talk) 13:37, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment The ship was used for two slave trades. A lot of ships surely did more than that.  What makes this one notable?  A lot of slaves surely died on such voyages, at that time it was common enough I don't believe that adds to its notability.    D r e a m Focus  18:51, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete The keep votes fail to make any policy-based argument that this article should be retained. Non-notable ship stub based on databases. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:00, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Merge and delete redirect - I think that it is unnecessary to see this as purely binary issue. There is no doubt that the slave trade and slave ships comprise notable subjects in themselves and to provide detail for the latter we already have the list article List of slave ships. There is no requirement for each list entry to meet WP requirements for its own article (though they must of course have appropriate referencing as, for example in the "List of shipwrecks..." articles), and that is already the case for the slave ships list in particular. I see advantage in at least those entries without their own articles being expanded to "summary stubs" of relevant material as in, for example, Lists of Empire ships. Perhaps colleagues, including those who have already !voted above, might consider this course. Davidships (talk) 22:45, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
 * For the record, since my suggestion not taken up, on reflection leaving a redirect to List of slave ships would be appropriate if there is useful content there. But in any case that would fall outside this AfD process. Davidships (talk) 04:23, 14 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep AfD is not for deleting articles in need of improvement. (See the AfD on 2 March 2018 on SS Corsea. I realize that WP doesn't recognize precedent but requires re litigation each time. As Desertarun points out above, once an article is deleted it is hard to improve it especially when improvement often takes the form of a line at a time. Lastly, one of the reasons I left economic forecasting was that I realized that no one can predict the future; I don't know what future research will discover. Acad Ronin (talk) 23:58, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
 * AfD is for deleting articles that are not notable, and you've failed to make any real argument that this is notable. Ergo, this is in the right place, and your argument is wholly without merit. Are you just going to say "AfD doesn't apply to my articles" on every single ship AfD? Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:05, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I do exercise judgement in which AfDs I dispute, but being reasonable is apparently a losing approach when dealing with people who don't. I have corrected the link to SS Corsea. It was the AfD on her where I got the sentence "AfD is not for deleting articles in need of improvement", which was the community consensus at the time. You might look at that article. Again, it is difficult to improve an article that as been deleted. Very recently, someone did a blank and redirect on London, rather than bothering to submit an AfD. An editor reverted that action and that editor and another found more than enough information to establish notability, including finding a book published in October 2022 that devotes a chapter to London's loss. Acad Ronin (talk) 01:12, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I did look at the article in question just now. Other than the addition of an infobox, it remains 3 sentences long and entirely unimproved since the AfD, with only 1 source - I'm not sure how that's supposed to be some damning proof that notable ships are being AfD'd wrongly. I also read through the AfD in question; I am of the opinion it was wrongly closed. Regardless, you have failed to make any argument that this ship - not London, not SS Corsea, not the Queen Mary II, but this ship - is notable. I'm not sure how calling that out counts as being unreasonable. Show us the sources that show this ship is notable, if they exist. Again, you're asking us to accept "AfD doesn't apply to my articles" and you'll find that's not going to get any traction. People have varying stances on inclusionism/deletionism, but I think you're about the only one to argue "my articles are immune to AfD because I say so". Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:28, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * keepI agree completely with User:Lyndaship. I find the Slave Voyages database credible and significant enough to satisfy WP:GNG CT55555 (talk) 06:36, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * GNG would still require multiple such sources, the slave database (if one accepts it for GNG reasons) is just one. Fram (talk) 08:50, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * "require" is overstating it a bit. GNG is guidance, so it guides rather than requires and even then, the guidance actually says that more than one source is "generally expected", meaning it is sometimes OK to not have it. Fortunately, there are other sources.
 * Anyway, in a system without of firm rules, a system that seeks informed opinion based on guidance, I've been guided by WP:GNG and opine that we should keep this. CT55555 (talk) 23:32, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * "Everything I Don't Like Is Optional: An Article Rescue Squadron Member's Guide To Wikipedia Debate". Now available in bookstores everywhere. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:38, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * You can think that, but I'm literally quoting the guidelines and one of the pillars of the encyclopaedia...WP:5P5 CT55555 (talk) 01:32, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * And I interpret your interpretation of 5P5 as clearly contradicting 5P5's statement that "The principles and spirit matter more than literal wording". What you are arguing is clearly against the spirit of GNG, despite your bending of the wording. Following your logic, we can then argue that articles don't require any sources at all, because GNG only "guides". That's the logical endpoint of your reasoning, and it is seriously flawed. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:43, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete I also find the database generally credible, but it's just a database about every slave ship and lacks prose coverage (or even its own sources based on prose coverage) that would be more significant as a basis for individual articles here. Of course many slave ships can be notable, but I don't think all slave ships are notable by virtue of being in a database of all slave ships. Reywas92Talk 14:10, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Each slave ship was the scene of a crime against humanity. I fail to see how some are more notable than others. Desertarun (talk) 14:56, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Read WP:N and then get back to us, particularly A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:59, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * And WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Fram (talk) 15:02, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi, significant coverage is not a hard concept. Every plantation, every auction block, every ship is a crime against humanity, but I'll give you a million bucks if you can show me where "crime scene" is the basis for automatically having a separate article here. Reywas92Talk 15:03, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The slave ship database is significant coverage and independent of the subject. That is what we're looking for. Desertarun (talk) 15:09, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Sources, plural. That means more than one (the ship appearing in the same database twice does not count as multiple sources for notability purposes). And the database is not significant coverage, either; it's just statistics. Either way, this fails GNG. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:13, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Sources in slave database for this ship: The slave database for this ship comprises 16 sources as follows:
 * LR1807: Lloyd's Register of Shipping, 1764, 1768, 1776, 1778-84, 1786-1787, 1789-1808 (all published in London).
 * BNA (Kew, London)
 * Board of TradeADM7/375:British National Archives (Kew), Admiralty
 * T70/1583:British National Archives (Kew)
 * T70/1584:British National Archives (Kew)
 * PP,1806(265),XIII,no.7: Great Britain, Parliamentary Papers: 1777, Accounts and Papers,
 * LiverpoolDirectory,97-100: Gore's Directory (Liverpool, 1807).
 * LList, 18 July 1806:
 * New Lloyd's List (later, Lloyd's List), (London, England)
 * LList, 9 Sept 1806:
 * New Lloyd's List (later, Lloyd's List), (London, England)
 * LList, 23 Sept 1806:
 * New Lloyd's List (later, Lloyd's List), (London, England)
 * LList, 2 Jan 1807:
 * New Lloyd's List (later, Lloyd's List), (London, England)
 * MMM, C/EX/L/5/6,1806.001: Merseyside Maritime Museum, Liverpool Registers of Merchant Ships, Subsidiary Register Books


 * I hope those who have voted delete now understand this database is tremendously sourced itself - each and every ship listed has a dozen or more independent sources. Desertarun (talk) 15:34, 13 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Nice try. You can't cite one source and say "but this source in turn cites multiple sources!" That's not how it works. You're misleadingly framing it as "it cites SIXTEEN SOURCES" when in reality it cites Lloyd's list nine times, and other registers and databases. And for all of those sources, the database only manages just some numbers and very basic information, not significant coverage. This is becoming a disruptive refusal to get the point. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:59, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Relisting comment: The arguments to delete are somewhat stronger. The arguments to keep hinge on the detailed entry in the database of slave ships being sufficient, which is a rather unusual argument, so relisting to allow more discussion of it rather than closing and inevitably being dragged to DRV. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 22:13, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. IMO all of the refs fail WP:SIGCOV, this piece is a general one with little direct coverage about James (1806 ship) to be WP:SIGCOV. The Slave Voyages is just a routine table, yes it is informative but proseless and mainly just go over statistics, which are not direct in-detail analysis but I understand how other keep voters can disagree. The rest are more obvious non-SIGCOV registers and databases, the references Slave Voyages cite are also non-SIGCOV databases per . Therefore, WP:GNG is failed, my BEFORE didn't find SIGCOV-meeting refs but do ping me if more are found.  VickKiang  (talk)  02:33, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep we have an encyclopedic article on this slave ship and the information is WP:V with RS. Lightburst (talk) 15:30, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete - none of the keep !votes are based on actual policy. Fails WP:GNG. Onel 5969  TT me 22:27, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep, a notable slave ship (historically important topic) which is well sourced and supported by formidable above discussion points. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:08, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Is there anything that makes this slave ship notable and a "historically important topic" even though no historian has actually written about it? No idea what you mean hy "formidable above discussion points". Fram (talk) 11:18, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Formidable per the data base cites. Historical per there were only so many named slave ships and Wikipedia's sourced articles on the topic maintains that historical record. Nothing broken here. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:55, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * "Only so many"? There are more than 36,000 slave ship voyages in the database, accounting for thousands of named slave ships (this metric seems to be absent from the database, but it looks like some 8,000 named ships). A named slave ship is not a rare thing at all. Fram (talk) 13:00, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks, interesting facts. That there were many ships doesn't make this page less worthy but highlights that an editor has taken an interest in this particular ship and presented it to the world as one of Wikipedia's examples with vertifiable coverage. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:26, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Which is hardly a reason to keep an article. Every article is created because an editor has taken an interest and that particular topic and presented it to the world, and it is not as if the article creator here has picked out this ship specifically for some reason: they create countless ship articles, some about clearly notable vessels, others about absolutely run-of-the-mill ones, without seemingly making any distinction. NOthing sets this slave ship apart from the thousands of others, which is why it is an entry in a database but not a topic which anyone ever has given specific attention to before this Wikipedia article (and Wikipedia should never be the first to do so). Fram (talk) 14:00, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Acad Ronin has made a very large number of ship articles. Plenty are perfectly fine articles, but some are non-notable and only based on databases. This is an example of the latter. Not sure how that translates to justifying its retention in the absence of significant coverage in reliable sources, nor does it indicate an editor has taken a particular interest in this ship, though I guess you could say I've taken an interest in it at this point. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:02, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete Too much of this article is un-referenced and I am unable to discover where that data came from. I created an entry for the James on the List of slave ships page. Note that the date here (1806) is the date of only one voyage; the database gives (at least - yargh! no search function) two entries, one from 1806 and one from 1807. It's clear that the database itself, while well-curated, is incomplete. All of the other sources are archival lists (insurers), or in one case an academic article that only includes the James in a supplemental list. If there is additional information I think it should be added to the entry on the list page. There are probably only a few such ships for which there is enough information to warrant an entire page. Lamona (talk) 02:37, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. To those who say "but we'd have 36,000 of these articles!" I say: "good." Ab e g92 contribs 23:05, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * In my year and a half on Wikipedia, I have participated in many an AfD and encountered a wide variety of perspectives on notability and what we should include in the encyclopedia. Yours, without doubt, is the single most inexplicable and wrongheaded I have ever encountered. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:52, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOTDATABASE. Can also do a very selective redirect/merge to List of slave ships or the like as well if desired, but probably shouldn't have all this detail if done.  Not convinced this ship has had significant coverage, a naval database of all ships ever is interesting but probably not in Wikipedia's scope.  SnowFire (talk) 17:03, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTDATABASE doesn't apply - it says this: To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations. Everything in the article does have context. Desertarun (talk) 21:21, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * This is mistaken. NOTDATABASE is routinely used to delete things that are indisputably true and verifiable, but are merely lines in a table somewhere.  "Context" isn't enough.  I will give an example - minor soldiers in a war.  It's quite possible to find a source that Bob Example served in this war in this division, and use that to map out tons of context of what exactly that division did, the outcome of its battles and the war itself, etc.  But unless we have some independent sources on Bob Example directly, it's not enough.  (And even if you disagree this is good policy, hopefully you can agree that it has been used in the past to delete similar articles on minor entities in a table but that are part of some notable larger event - see the dispute on minor Olympians in pre-1920 Olympics for one example of such.)  SnowFire (talk) 23:09, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * It appears you have misunderstood the slavevoyages website. It as a university research organisation that thoroughly collates thousands of independent sources to support and detail individual slave voyages. In the case of James's first voyage there are around 16 cites and for the second voyage there are another 6. So in total there are 22 cites. The example you've given just doesn't apply because each cite relates exactly to this ship. NOTDATABASE doesn't apply and this conversation at its heart is discussing whether slavevoyages represents, with its multiple cites, WP:SIGCOV. Desertarun (talk) 23:54, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * This has already been rebutted, so please stop repeating it. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:17, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Your reply was "that's not how it works", that's not a rebuttal. Desertarun (talk) 00:27, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Please at least attempt to actually engage with the substance of what I said, which was a lot more than just the first sentence you chose to quote. I'm really done trying to reason with you, since you're here to push your opinion which has no basis in policy or reality. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:43, 24 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment. I have already !voted above for Merge and redirect to List of slave ships, but I am concerned about the scope of the sample entry made by and "very selective merge" suggested by . Where there is no specific linked article, the content in the list must give meaningful information about the ship and its slaving activity, otherwise it is of little use to the reader. That is why I commended the Lists of Empire ships articles as useful models (though better inline referencing should of course be provided). Davidships (talk) 23:56, 23 December 2022 (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.