Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Liberty Clipper


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 02:14, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Liberty Clipper

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Uncited, unreferenced article about a private sailing vessel. PROD was declined with no reason given. Exemplo347 (talk) 16:47, 8 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep per our editing policy, "Even poor articles, if they can be improved, are welcome."  The nomination fails WP:BEFORE as sources are easy to find, for example Chapman Great Sailing Ships of the World.  The PROD was disruptive as the article is newly created by a new editor and so proposing deletion is obviously controversial and contrary to WP:BITE. Andrew D. (talk) 08:50, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * With respect, all the sources do is confirm that it exists. I'm not debating its existence - I'm saying that it isn't Notable - has the vessel taken part in any notable events, for example? If the standard for notability is merely proving that something exists then that's a pretty low bar. Exemplo347 (talk) 09:10, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The sources confirm that sources exist and that's what our notability guideline is all about. Whether the ship has taken part in events is irrelevant.  Andrew D. (talk) 09:57, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I could probably find sources that prove a lot of things exist - it wouldn't automatically mean that the GNG threshold is met. What's notable about this particular ship? Exemplo347 (talk) 10:03, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't know where User:Andrew Davidson gets the idea that proof of existence is all that is needed to satisfy the notability guidelines. There is no way that I can see of reading any of the notability guidelines as saying that. On the contrary, the whole reason why we have notability guidelines is that we don't accept articles on just anything which exists: if we did, there would be no need for pages full of information about what subjects are acceptable and what aren't. (More detailed coverage of this issue is at Existence ≠ Notability.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:24, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * There seems to be a misunderstanding. What I wrote was "The sources confirm that sources exist".  It's the existence of sources which is the essence of our notability guideline.  The nominator seems to think that notability is a matter of achievement, fame or importance.  But it isn't; what we require are sources which cover the topic in detail.  I have demonstrated that such sources exist and so the topic is notable per WP:N.  Andrew D. (talk) 10:46, 10 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete as non-notable. We're going to have a lot of articles if we make a page for every non notable private charter vessel. Laurdecl talk 05:31, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The vessel is notable. The number of pages we might have for such vessels is not a reason to delete – see WP:NOTPAPER. Andrew D. (talk) 10:49, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Now that's there's reliable sources that indicate notability I'll change my vote, thanks. But as for WP:NOTPAPER see WP:NOTTOILETPAPER. Laurdecl talk 14:23, 10 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep as added sources clearly indicate notability. Laurdecl talk 14:23, 10 January 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.