Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of sea captains


 * 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. Whether or not this article is "useful" is irrelevant, so arguments focusing on that were given less weight in my evaluation of the discussion. The arguments that the scope of the list is too broad and unmaintainable aren't necessarily pertinent to a deletion discussion; such issues are dealt with via standard editing, except in extreme instances. However, those arguing for retention seem to provide more substantial and relevant arguments than those in favor of removal. Considering all this, it seems consensus is safely on the side of keeping – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:35, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

List of sea captains

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

same as List of naval commanders, especially because that resulted in a deletion which makes this list very odd to keep. PDBailey (talk) 17:38, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * general request I proposed this deletion because an essentially identical article, "List of naval commanders" was deleted (please familiarize yourself with why). I would like to think that if two identical articles are proposed for deletion, it shouldn't be that one gets deleted and the other doesn't because of who shows up to discuss, but this discussion looks to be going that way. I would therefore request that those who want to keep this article address the list of naval commanders article in their comments (i.e. "that should not have been deleted", or "once you become a flag officer you no longer deserve a category", or something). I guess the point is, I would like to think that there should be some method to the deletion/keep madness and Wikipedia is nothing more than we make it, so why not make it sensical? PDBailey (talk) 01:23, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * As you say: one gets deleted and the other doesn't because of who shows up to discuss. Unfortunately, last time 9 came and 5 said 'delete'.  Decisions should be based on consensus wp:CONS not Tyranny of the majority.  Wikipedia has many shortcomings, this is one, incomplete lists is another, however it is up to us to overcome these shortcomings.  Is it valid to conclude that you want this list deleted to "make it sensical", irrespective of its merits?  I hope that, this time, the article is kept - not because more say "keep" but because those who say "delete" are persuaded in discussion to reconsider their position. ClemMcGann (talk) 02:14, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You asked, "Is it valid to conclude that you want this list deleted to "make it sensical", irrespective of its merits?" I answer: No, you miss my point. I am asking for those requesting a keep to request it in light of the previous deletion and say something about that prior deletion. This might be, "it was a travesty, we should undo it", or, "no, the other list was irrelevant to the article." My request is only that the two be considered together in some sense. I would further request some sort of knowledge of why the previous article was deleted, which i.e. DGG did not appear to, and his comments appeared to be irrelevant to. PDBailey (talk) 13:52, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * PD asked say something about that prior deletion. This might be, "it was a travesty. I have already described it as "regrettable".  John said "probably a mistake to delete". I find the word "travesty" a bit strong, but is was wrong, an error, should not have happened.  As to why the previous article was deleted, I have already speculated that it was a reluctance to address the issues with the list and that deleting the article was despair.  Lists are difficult and time consuming to get right.  I advocate trying to solve the issue rather than ignoring (and deleting) it ClemMcGann (talk) 14:47, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * ClemMcGann, I think you still haven't addressed the central reason for the previous deletion which was that the idea could be taken care of with categories, and that any such categories should really by more specific. Under the widest interpretation, the previous list could have contained Agamemnon and this list could contain JFK (who's time spent as a captain has numerous secondary sources regarding it). The focus is lacking. I am not saying that this is a bullet proof argument, I'm just saying that it is what you should respond to. PDBailey (talk) 19:45, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Pdbailey, I asked the closing admin to put a copy of "List of naval commanders" in my userspace. Anyone who wants to can see it at User:JohnWBarber/List of naval commanders. That list gave names, birth and death years and nationalities. It wasn't much better than a category. This list for sea captains is a lot different, and that may explain the greater support for this one (the last AfD closed with 6 Deletes, 3 Keeps by my count, and that looks like a delete consensus to me). Using categories just doesn't work for this, and lists are supposed to overlap with categories, as WP:LIST states, so Wikipedia loses out if we lose this article. JohnWBarber (talk) 22:52, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * It is here -> <- ClemMcGann (talk) 23:06, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep There doesn't appear to be anything wrong with it. If it gets too long, it can be split up by country. One of the "Keep" votes in the discussion about the "List of naval commanders" article mentioned that that list was helpful in looking up a name. This one would be, too. It's got more information in it than names, so something would be lost if we only relied on categories. JohnWBarber (talk) 19:03, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * question: do you think that List of naval commanders should be undeleted? If not, how is this list different? PDBailey (talk) 21:19, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think it was probably a mistake to delete that list. Then this list might be distinguished from it by including non naval captains. JohnWBarber (talk) 00:25, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Categories are useful, are a lot easier than list easier to set up, and have their place. Portals are great to introduce a subject.  However the advantage of lists, such as this is that there will be a short précis, there are headings to sort the entries, assisting in the location of an entry.  Lists, such as this would make the encyclopedia more user-friendly, more accessible, more useful. Nonetheless lists are not without issues.  In the initial stages they will be incomplete, the same can be said of wikipedia itself.  In the later stages they can become too large and unwieldy.  I suggest that it is up to us, as editors, to address these issues rather than deleting articles in despair.  By "despair" I mean the arguments "the criterion are too wide / undefined / lack clarity / too broad ... "  It is a list with entries pointing to aticles.  Its like an index into the book.  It helps readers find articles.  These arguments were used in the regrettable "List of naval commanders" deletion.  5 of 9 wanted it deleted.  I hope that they will reconsider their position ClemMcGann (talk) 00:29, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - non-useful list. Seriously, do we expect anyone to come across a sea captain and go, 'Ooh, I wonder who some other sea captains might have been?'  - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:25, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * sorted by era, location, merchant/navy etc - yes - ClemMcGann (talk) 00:32, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd expect someone who is searching for a sea captain and knows or remembers vaguely something about that person (except for the name) to find a list like this very useful. Take a look at what User:Brad said in this similar AfD. That's the classic way these lists are used. JohnWBarber (talk) 00:59, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * To JohnWBarber - Well, the result of that AfD was delete so I'm not sure it's a good precedent argument. To ClemMcGann - would it not be more appropriate (and useful) to instead have "List of Sea Captains in [x] Navy" or "List of [nationality] Sea Captains" rather than a purportedly exhaustive list of everyone who's ever captained a boat at sea? - DustFormsWords (talk) 01:35, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * There are no precedents -- that is, there are no binding precedents so there's nothing about the last AfD that prevents us from keeping this article, and the article is at 34K bytes now, so there's no rush to split it, but it shouldn't get much bigger without a split. Wikipedia lists are for items that are articles already or should be, so there's nothing inherently unmanageable about the subject. JohnWBarber (talk) 02:24, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * In answer to:To ClemMcGann - would it not be more appropriate (and useful) to instead have "List of Sea Captains in [x] Navy" or "List of [nationality] Sea Captains" - yes, once the list is big enough, for the time being we could add nationality as a sort field, and it is good to see that you are considering improvements rather than giving up in despair, keep the ideas coming! ClemMcGann (talk) 03:03, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete much too broad of a generalization. Navy captains? Merchant captains? Cruise ship captains? Private yacht captains? What constitutes a "sea captain"? This isn't broken down by type of captain, country, or any criteria other than sea captain, which is a vague criteria. It says it include merchant and naval captains, but doesn't exclude anything. Much better handled by categories.--Monkeybait (talk) 03:34, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I accept that the list has shortcomings. Would it not be preferable to add criteria rather than giving up? ClemMcGann (talk) 14:47, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  -- – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 19:52, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.  -- – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 19:52, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep The obvious meaning is about captains notable as such in Wikipedia terms and about which we have articles   A list with material limited to that in articles on notable  Wikipedia  subjects is not indiscriminate, but discriminating, according to WP:N. Categories and lists are complementary, and there is no reason not to have both. Lists have the particular advantage of providing some information about the material in which they appear, thus facilitating identification and browsing.  Browsing is a key function of an encyclopedia. As a general rule, for topics like this, if there is a category, there should be a list. And we should undelete the other list also. We might do well to have more detailed lists also, but that can be worked on--that this list is not as good as it might be is no reason to delete it. I don;t see the problem about the scope:as the article clearly says,  it includes naval and merchant, & if any of other types are notable as such they can be included also. . If any   Personally, I dislike this list's format because of the space it takes to display the photos in the table--they;'re all tin the linked articles in any case; but that is fixable.  DGG ( talk ) 05:47, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * question did you read the naval commanders deletion page? Do you think that should be reinstated? I proposed this deletion because I was looking for parity (it makes no sense to me that one list be deleted and the other kept but I believe it is possible to undelete the other list too. PDBailey (talk) 11:08, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * DGG, by your logic, any list that links exclusively to Wikipedia articles should be kept. Your requirement isn't that the logic of inclusion make sense, only that it be clearly stated. This point may seem a little pedantic, but when your premise is wrong your conclusion is essentially uninformative. PDBailey (talk) 00:15, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep as the list itself is notable and therefore fitting for an article, although I have to say that I strongly disagree with DGG's interpretation of the function of these lists, which I view as overly indiscriminate. Here's an example of a publication regarding a very similiar topic, just with a focus narrowed by date. Here's another example where the subject is described.  Them From  Space  18:55, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Ummm, care to explain "the list itself is notable" how? They drive boats, I drive a car. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 08:27, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Each list entry (should have) has a wp article - and therefore (should be) notable. If there is a wp article on your car driving then a case could be made for your inclusion in another list.  The list is a navigational aid (if you can excuse the pun) ClemMcGann (talk) 11:30, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * So then you agree with me that the entries on the list are notable, but the List itself is not. Saying "the list itself is notable" implies that it was reprinted over and over again in other sources for some reason, thus making the List notable. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 22:21, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Did I say that??
 * I said that lists are an aid to navigation
 * Different readers have different ways of navigating their way through wikipedia. Some start, as they would with a printed book, with the contents Portal:Contents where they will see not just lists - but lists of lists Featured lists.  We have lots of lists, persumably because they are useful.  We have lists on just about every subject under the sun - provided its not a maritime list.  Why not? ClemMcGann (talk) 23:32, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * And I agree with the navigation bit wholeheartedly. But saying the List itself is notable is not true. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 23:51, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Glad that you "agree with the navigation bit wholeheartedly". I hope that we keep this article not because more vote "Keep" but because those who said "Delete" reconsider their position (which implies that the keeps have to be open to persuasion as well) ClemMcGann (talk) 00:08, 24 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment -- This list could become endless. However, it has some potential merit, in that is is providing some Brief biographic data.  Furthermore, it has a list of redlinks for needed articles.  My criticism of it concerns its enormous scope.  I would be happier if it were split by nationality or arranged by date (probably of death) or provided something more that categories cannot provide.  I also suspect that the otehr list should be undeleted.  If so, this list should be limited to merchant captains and the other to naval commanding officers, but not limiting it merely to those with the rank of commander.  Peterkingiron (talk) 22:16, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I accept your criticism. Soon, very soon, it will have to be divided, initially probably by nationality.
 * I do not like red-links. Recently I noticed that Peter Campbell, founder of the Uruguayan Navy, was missing, then I discovered that we had no article for him! so I created a stub and put some sources on his talk page.  In short, I prefer stubs to red-links. (anyone care to do cone copy-edit? - if so, please help Peter Campbell (naval officer).  Question to consider: when (not if) we split this article by nationality would he be Irish or Uruguayan? - I suggest that in such instances we say 'both' and duplicate the entry. ClemMcGann (talk) 23:04, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * ClemMcGann, can you please address why this article is better than a category? Categories can be hierarchical, which could be very nice for these naval leaders. PDBailey (talk) 00:12, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi, PD, I never said that a list is 'better' than a category. In my first post here I said that lists, categories and portals all have their own place. Each has its own strengths and weaknesses.  I posted that categories are much easier to set up.  However lists have advantages, (as well as disadvantages).  The (usually) have a short précis to help identify which article is of interest.  If the sort headings are judiciously chosen they will assist in the location of an entry. while categories by (say) date of birth are possible, I suggest that a list along with its précis would be more user-friendly.  ClemMcGann (talk) 00:52, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, so the claim is then that
 * (1) there is a role for a list of naval commanders/captains because the vignettes add value.
 * (2) eventually this list should be broken down by country of origin (I would do this by flag they flew under when they did their notable work).
 * If this is your claims, then I have two questions:
 * (a) Why don't the leads to the article provide sufficient vignettes?
 * (b) Assuming this list is kept, why not just add the commanders back to this list, is the distinction between a commander and a captain so important? If a captain is notable for their role as a captain and then gets promoted, which list do they belong on?
 * I also wonder who exactly is the target audience that wants to read vignettes of naval officers on one page but can't bother to click on the links and read the leads, but I figure there are probably always more readers than editors, so it must be there. PDBailey (talk) 01:34, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

(a) the leads should provide the info, indeed a lead and a précis/vignette could be identical. Its just to make life easier and more convenient for the reader. (b)- good idea - lets add the commanders back. ClemMcGann (talk) 02:29, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * okay, I still don't understand the draw of this list, but I don't think that is a compelling reason to delete something from Wikipedia. I really did propose deletion because I thought, "if the wisdom is that we don't want commanders then why keep the captains." it is fine with me if the wisedom is, "that was a bad idea, lets fix it."
 * Would you agree to the fact including commanders means that the list will be renamed to something like list of naval officers. PDBailey (talk) 03:03, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Why all this talk of adding the list of naval commanders back? The gist of the other discussion was that naval commander was a meaningless criteria. Stop talking about undeleting an article you have never seen.--

Monkeybait (talk) 12:14, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It was a simple list - not that different from a category - it wasn't a table - no précis/vignette - no sortable fields. Nonetheless it would have been better to improve it, admittedly a lot of work, rather than giving up and deleting it ClemMcGann (talk) 22:36, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - too broad, potentially covers bathtubs to Oil Rigs. What next List of Pilots? Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 08:48, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * If Wikipedia has articles about captains of bathtubs and managers of oil rigs, then a list of them would be justified. If there were too many of them for one page, we might divide the bathtub commandants by Hot, Warm and Cold, or perhaps Lion-claw footed, Installed. There are a limited number of captains with Wikipedia articles, and we should be able to break up the list, when it needs breaking up, by creating new lists based on nationality. If the British or U.S. lists get too large, they can be further broken up by century of birth or even decade of birth. Some lists break up names alphabetically. It can be done. There's nothing inherently too broad about the concept that simply splitting off part of it couldn't fix pretty easily. JohnWBarber (talk) 13:00, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Why should someone make a new list, this one would cover it according to the title? Fyodor Konyukhov, Charlie Barr & Charles J. Moore (and lets not forget about Richard Phillips (captain) ) would currently fit the Article. There is no distinctions made. Thus the "to broad". Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 08:10, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete as the article says It is limited to those notable in this role, and about which Wikipedia has articles which means it should be a category. MilborneOne (talk) 19:15, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as the article is useful to those interested in naval history.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 05:56, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * As useful as it may be, as it stands, there is no reason why the likes of Sig Hansen are not included. The Article is currently to broad. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 08:01, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep and add Sig. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 23:07, 26 October 2009 (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.