Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of UK Admiralty Charts, 1967


 * 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 transwiki to Wikisource. Those arguing to keep have failed to demonstrate that this topic meets WP:NLIST. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:00, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

List of UK Admiralty Charts, 1967

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This is a tough one. A list of admiralty charts may well be a good subject for an article, and a lot of work has gone into this one. However, there is nothing special about the 1967 situation, catalogues were produced each year it seems and the choice for the 1967 one is completely random. Simply moving this to List of UK Admiralty Charts would be wrong though, as it is a very outdated snapshot only. While this is at AfD, perhaps draftifying would be the best solution, and there let people turn it into a general list instead of this specific one? No idea if someone would be interested in this work, but simply keeping it in the mainspace as is, isn't a good idea either. Fram (talk) 09:09, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

(This comment added later): to be clear, the reason for deletion is a total lack of notability for the 1967 list of charts specifically. The remainder of my comments above were thoughts on how the work that went into this one could somehow be reused to create an article that is acceptable, but I should have explicitly stated my initial deletion argument. Fram (talk) 10:41, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 09:09, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 09:09, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:17, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

As the one who put in the work to tabulate this, I obviously wish to see it kept. Yes, it's a snapsot, but of a pretty slow-moving scene. As you can see from the edition dates these charts remained in use for decades. A listing of this sort every 20 years or so would come close to giving comprehensive coverage. The choice of 1967 is not exactly random. It is the only global catalogue since 1914 that is available on the internet, and the 1914 one: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/332262/UKHO-1914-Archives-Catalogue.pdf is of too poor quality for OCR. If more become available I will be happy to tabluate them! Until then, the listing is, I agree, not comprehensive. As others have pointed out, citing WP:NOTCLEANUP that is not in itself a sufficient reason for deletion. Also citing NOTCLEANUP, "Remember that there is no deadline". I suggest the question might be "is it useful?" For me, as one interested in all things nautical, it certainly is (and will continue to be so even if no longer on WP). I suspect there are others like me who find this valuable. Why should they be deprived of it? No-one has suggested that the information is not reliable or properly sourced. As for notability, I'd written most of this before seeing the last posts. It's a bit difficult to make a case when the ground seems to be shifting... But if the topic of Admiralty Charts is notable, it's difficult to see how an index that helps people to find the chart they are looking for is not notable. Kognos (talk) 12:59, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep per WP:NOTCLEANUP. This is obviously a spinoff or appendix to Admiralty chart.  It seems to be the only year detailed but this makes it a good example of what would be produced in such a year in the pre-Internet era.  Examples are appropriate and helpful in understanding the topic and so quite valid.  Deletion would be disruptive and the nomination doesn't even seem to be suggesting this – just musing about various approaches to development. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:27, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * No, I suggest deletion, but some of it may be reused in another article if someone is up to the task, so userfication/draftification may be a good solution as well. We don't do "example" articles, and this list doesn't even show what was produced that year, just what they still had in stock. No idea what the relevance is of "such a year in the pre-internet era", or why this 300K "example" would help anyone understand the topic any better than perhaps stating how many different charts were produced and how many are still available, with some examples (or else with a full list of all produced charts, not what was available in a random year). Fram (talk) 09:43, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, we use examples all the time as these are helpful in explaining unfamiliar topics such as this. They may take the form of separate pages, especially if they are images, and that's just a technical detail of implementation, not some fundamental issue or problem.  My !vote stands. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:17, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Some examples of what you mean? I'm not really familiar with what you claim here. Separate pages of random examples with no notability on their own, but which are kept because they are examples? No, doesn't seem that common at all. Fram (talk) 10:20, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Well I am familiar with this, having worked on topics such as Arthur Beale and Stanfords where they sold such charts. My !vote stands.  Andrew🐉(talk) 10:24, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I guess any competent admin who closes this discussion will then dismiss your !vote as utterly unsupported. Your choice. Fram (talk) 10:29, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Fram's incessant badgering demonstrates that this is best closed speedily per WP:BLUDGEON. And now it seems that they are moving the goalposts.  My !vote stands. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:52, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Incessant badgering? You claimed that we have plenty of examples of such articles, but when asked to provide some, you started about your personal experience of shops selling these charts. If you don't want your arguments to be scrutinized and criticised, then make sure that they are correct and well-supported (and visibly so for others), and improve them were needed. E.g. when Thincat rightly argues that my opening statement didn't contain any claims about notability, I acknowledged this and corrected that oversight. That's hardly "moving the goalposts" but what these discussions are actually for. If you want to make ivory towers declarations which are infallible and may not be questioned, then make them on your talk page but don't try this in deletion discussions. But feel free to raise this AfD at WP:ANI and request this to be speedy deleted per WP:BLUDGEON, we'll see how it goes. Fram (talk) 11:04, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep and for me the decision doesn't seem tough at all. We need to start somewhere - presumably one article about a particular Olympic Games appeared before any of the others. We don't, and shouldn't, delete articles merely because Wikipedia is incomplete. How can moving to draft possibly help? The state of the article is perfectly clear and no one will be misled. Thincat (talk) 10:11, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * But that one particular Olympic Game was obviously notable. How is the list of which charts were available in 1967 a notable subject? Has this year in particular received significant attention? Per your reasoning, you would be happy if people started making the same list for all other years as well (which would then nicely invalidate the above speedy keep of course). The reason for deletion is not "because Wikipedia is incomplete", that is a nice strawman. The reason for deletion is because the 1967 catalogue is not a notable subject at all. The only reason I raised draftification and so on was because some of the contents of this non-notable sbject article could perhaps be reused by someone else to create an article on a notable subject. Apparently I shouldn't have tried to be accommodating and thinking about this, and should simply have advocated straight-forward Delete, fails WP:N instead. Fram (talk) 10:17, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The idea that the topic isn't notable wasn't raised at all in your nomination. I thought you were finding a problem of principle in this sort of article. Thincat (talk) 10:29, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * You're right, I should have added that at the start. I'll do this now (but will note that I added it) so other commenters aren't confused. It was the basis for my nomination, but what I wrote down were my further thoughts on the issue only. Fram (talk) 10:40, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Like I said, a list of all charts may be a notable addition: a list of all charts which were available in 1967 (or 1918 or 2005 or 2021) is not. Fram (talk) 13:38, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete This is basically a copy-paste of the WP:CATALOG Catalogue of Admiralty Charts 1967 Complete Edition and I fail to see why this directory of maps available in that year is a notable encyclopedic topic, sourced only to this primary source which it replicates. This link – which can certainly be useful – should be highlighed in the Admiralty chart but it's not clear what makes this catalogue an article. Reywas92Talk 14:18, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * It's not a simple replication. What makes it useful (to me) is the fact that the list is sorted by chart number. Kognos (talk) 15:47, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

You'll not be surprised that I would prefer a move to Wikisource to complete deletion, nor that I would prefer to keep this as a WP article. The article was reviewed back in February, so at least one reviewer found it notable. What now? This is the first time I've been in this kind of discussion. Are we now waiting for an Adminstror to adjudicate? Kognos (talk) 22:55, 22 July 2021 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * move to Wikisource I agree that there is some value here, but nonetheless it is a transcription of a primary source. The admiralty offers on their website an almost identical listing of the current charts in the form of a spreadsheet. This is exactly the sort of thing that Wikisource was intended to hold, and it's way outside our purview as an encyclopedia and not a collection of primary texts. Mangoe (talk) 01:10, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Transwiki to Wikisource. Why the hell would we simply delete something of this quality that took so much work to make? As has been pointed out, this is a significant year for the charts, and being sorted by chart number; sad to imagine it being washed away for essentially no good reason. jp×g 04:44, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep: This is a very valuable source of information and is exactly what Wikipedia is for. Also WP:NOTCLEANUP per others. Dr. Universe (talk) 20:42, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep, if a list of all charts is to be considered notable, this snippet of that list ought to be considered notable too. It appears is keen to work on this subject area more, so coverage will improve over time if this is kept. I would also support a move to Wikisource if the only alternative being considered is deletion. NemesisAT (talk) 20:50, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete on the basis of a lack of notability for a list of charts from 1967 specifically. –– F ORMAL D UDE ( talk ) 04:15, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   06:20, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. The notability of the overall topic is not in question, and in Kognos we have an editor who is likely to expand our coverage in this area. I think the claim that there is no particular notability for the 1967 charts fails for two reasons: (1) we have to start somewhere, and there's no reason to disparage 1967 as a starting point, and (2) Kognos has actually provided us with a perfectly cogent reason why 1967's charts are good ones to start with. Sourcing strikes me as fine, and anyone interested in this area would find this index (and indices for other years) useful. RomanSpa (talk) 08:29, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Neither of your two points addresses WP:N in any way though: 1967 is taken because it is available online, and "we have to start somewhere", are not indicators of notability at all, but of convenience only. This "index", this rewriting of primary source material, belongs, as has correctly been stated by others, at Wikisource, where it is welcome and would be just as useful as here (and where the same list for other years could also be added if people wanted this), but where it would actually be in scope of the project. Fram (talk) 08:48, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The notable subject is Admiralty chart. We could merge this content into that article, but it's easily too large to be suitable, so it should stay as a separate article. NemesisAT (talk) 09:06, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * There are a few leaps in that reasoning. Even if this list was a lot smaller, it would be WP:UNDUE for the main article, as there is no reason there either to have a catalogue of what was available in 1967 (we e.g. don't make such lists for general publishers either: a list of new publications, by year, may be notable (depending on subject, sourcing, ...), but a list of everything still available in a certain year would never be accepted for any publisher. And as it wouldn't even be acceptable in the main article (for other reasons than size), it definitely isn't acceptable as a spin-off standalone article. Fram (talk) 09:31, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The relevance of the 1967 list goes way beyond the year 1967. An example: I'm in Morecambe right now, and can see a light flashing each 15 seconds. It's the Walney lighthouse, 14 miles to the west. The lighthouse is shown on chart No 2010, first published in 1873 (it's on Commons) which is on the 1967 list along with the 1963 edition. Chart 2010 of Morecambe Bay is still in print. So information on the 1967 list is relevant over a period of nearly 150 years. Admiralty charts are an important historical resource, and the list provides a useful index to that resource.Kognos (talk) 21:16, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Uh, that gives zero relevance to the 1967 list: it barely gives relevance to the charts in general (well, the charts are obviously notable, but the fact that a geographic feature is shown on a map or chart doesn't give that map any notability). Giving this example as a reason to have this 1967 catalogue on Wikipedia is not convincing at all. Fram (talk) 07:13, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep We see that this discussion has not been speedily closed but has been relisted instead. And it will, of course, be kept in perpetuity as we never seem to delete such chuntering.  Anyway, as we are invited to say more, let me register a !vote.  The page should be kept because it passes WP:LISTN per sources such as An Abridged List of the Admiralty Charts; British Admiralty Charts; Sea Charts of the British Isles; The Admiralty Chart: British Naval Hydrography; The Charting of the Oceans; The Admiralty chart: Trends in content and design; 200 years of Admiralty charts and surveys; Changing the Admiralty Chart; &c.  Applicable policies include: WP:ATD; WP:PRESERVE and, of course, WP:NOTPAPER! Andrew🐉(talk) 08:13, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * you already voted speedy keep above, please vote only once. And none of your sources are about the 1967 catalogue. Fram (talk) 08:28, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Per WP:NOTAVOTE, these are not votes and that why they are conventionally called !votes. My original entry above was procedural in calling for speedy closure of the discussion.  As that has not been done and fresh input has been called for instead, I am making a more substantive contribution while putting a bold summary for the general convenience of the discussion's readership.  The issue of WP:BLUDGEON still seems relevant though. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:59, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Ridiculous. And wrong, of course, as usual. Andhighly ironical: your "notavote" says "polling is not a substitute for discussion.", but when people try to have a discussion adressing your arguments, you refuse this per "bludgeon". If it's not a vote and not a discussion, then it's just an Andrew-knows-better dictatorship I guess? Too bad that it doesn't seem to work, perhaps because your !votes are meaningless. You above try to use WP:LISTN as a reason to keep this, and then give a number of sources which don't address the list topic (the 1967 catalogue of the then available charts) at all. Fram (talk) 09:40, 28 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Weak delete- as above it's not clear why 1967 of all dates has been singled out in this way, and the whole concept of the list seems to fall afoul of WP:NOTDIR. Wikisource would be a better place for this data dump. Reyk</b> <b style="color: Blue;">YO!</b> 12:47, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment. If I understand this right, Kognos's critical point here is that the list is useful on the wiki because it can be sorted by chart number. Wikisource allows for this feature, so, if the consensus here is to delete, the content can simply be moved there. The closer might first want to provisionally userfy the article, in recognition of Kognos's work on it, and that it is not lost to him and others interested. Now, a transcription of another work without the required coverage in secondary sources is not encyclopedic, and it must be demonstrated that this article can develop further if it's to be kept. Moving to Wikisource may be the best course of action. Avilich (talk) 14:15, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete this is INDISCRIMINATE. The concept of Admiralty charts is notable, but I see no argument that the full 4000-entry table of contents is wiki-notable.  If the content is permitted by copyright to be on Wikisource, it can be there. User:力 (power~enwiki,  π,  ν ) 23:39, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep, as this concept overall is obviously notable, and we have to start somewhere.Jackattack1597 (talk) 10:24, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * This has already been addressed above. Avilich (talk) 14:49, 30 July 2021 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.