Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Peruvian steam frigates

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was KEEP. dbenbenn | talk 23:55, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The votes were 3 delete, 1 merge, 6 keep.

List of Peruvian steam frigates
This article doesn't make any sense to me. Does it to you? &#8212; Daniel FR 23:48, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. See Frigate.  Though admittedly this particular page isn't very edifying.  dbenbenn | talk 00:26, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete, not a very useful or practical list, un-encyclopaedic. Megan1967 02:05, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep and send to User:SpookyMulder for cleanup. It's part of the Frigate set. --Carnildo 02:36, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Encyclopedic, and perfectly useful and practical to those interested in Peruvian steam frigates.--Centauri 12:55, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm a little concerned about the above. This article has significant value and should (IMHO) be kept, but to say that its main value is to "those interested in Peruvian steam frigates" misses the point entirely and thus seems rather glib and machanical.  --RoySmith 15:56, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * I've notice a lot of people who regularly vote to have articles deleted do so because "it's not notable enough for me", forget that their personal opinion is not a sufficiently objective benchmark by which to judge subjects with which they are usually largely unfamiliar; such articles are almost always "notable enough" for other people - otherwise they wouldn't exist in the first place. Encyclopedias can and should be full of all manner of so-called "obscure" data. That is their primary value as a research tool. --Centauri 22:33, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * No it's not. An encyclopaedia is meant to be useful. Wikipedia is also not a general database, so including every "obscure data" is not policy. See what Wikipedia is not. Megan1967 02:48, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * OK, fair enough. Let's assume that there is some information which is worth keeping (call it "obscure") and some which is not (call it "trivia").  The question then, I think, comes down to where is the dividing line between trivia and obscure data.  Can it be anything other than a judgment call, i.e. opinion?  Or is your claim that such a dividing line doesn't exist; that there is no information which is so trivial as to not be worth including?  --RoySmith 23:55, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Got it in one. One person's "trivia" is another person's "priceless data". Articles about famous scientists, dead European monarchs and 2000 year-old religious controversies are not inherently "better" than articles about high schools, railway stations or Congolese paddle steamers merely because the latter subjects might be considered mundane by most people. --Centauri 02:52, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, I think we will need to agree to disagree on that, but I do appreciate your taking the time to explain your philosophy. --RoySmith 12:57, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep and Cleanup. The article (and the whole series) needs some major cleanup, and standing on its own it's kind of pointless, but in context it's interesting and notable.  At the very least, the leaf articles (such as this one) need pointers (catagory links?) back to Frigate.  --RoySmith 13:01, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge if it isn't going to be expanded. If there's only two on the list, it may well be too granular to be an article on its own, but is info that should be kept somewhere (List of steam frigates? List of South American steam frigates?). Average Earthman 14:20, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * If this was the only article in the series, I'd agree with you. On the other hand, some of the lists (for example, List of sailing frigates of the United States Navy or List of British sail frigates) are certainly long enough to deserve their own articles.  I think consistancy of presentation argues for leaving the shorter ones as they are. It might be worthwhile reviewing the names of the individual articles in the series to make them a bit more uniform (i.e. "sailing frigates" vs. "sail frigates").  --RoySmith 15:56, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep, obviously. VfD is not a cleanup tool.  GRider\talk 19:14, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Hold on a sec! As i mentioned above, this article didn't make any sense to me. And it still doesn't. May anyone of you wanna-keepers explain to me, what the words (are these the names of the frigates? the streams they cruise on?) and the numbers (serial ship numbers by the shipping companies? number of crew members? length in manheights? width in feet?) in the list mean? My point wasn't that i question the significance of Peruvian steam frigates as such, but that this Article doesn't make any &#8211; literally: nil &#8211; sense to me. &#8212; Daniel FR 20:16, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I think the numbers are meant to be how many guns the ship carried, but I only know that (assuming, of course, that it's correct) because I know something about the subject. Clearly, there's a lot of work needed to cleanup the whole series so things like this are obvious to people without previous knowledge --RoySmith 22:27, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Not at all useful. An article on Peruvian steam frigates would be good, but this isn't one. TomTheHand 06:42, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)
 * I happen to enjoy ephemeral subjects and I've written about them here. Normally, I'd vote to delete something like this based on lack of content, but I'm going to vote keep since there are a couple of good users willing to step up and make something useful out of this.  Good luck, fellas! - Lucky 6.9 22:49, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Whaaaa? Is this a joke?  Delete.  Edeans 06:35, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.