Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lune (1794 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 merge to List of slave ships. Merge as ATD. Liz Read! Talk! 06:24, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Lune (1794 ship)

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

No evidence of notability, with a history which is scraped together from disparate sources and seems to be rather dubious: sailing from Liverpool on 25 March 1798, and arriving in Kingston in May 1799 after buying slaves in Gabon? What, they stayed a year in Africa waiting for slaves? In any case, whether one believes this or not, there is no evidence of notability for this ship. Fram (talk) 12:23, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Transportation,  and England. Fram (talk) 12:23, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep The primary source for the voyages is the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade Database, which is the result of several decades of collaboration between university researchers and universities. The remark that the data is "dubious" reflects a lack of familiarity with the world of 1799 or so: sailing takes time. Think about two months to get to West Africa from Liverpool. Months on the coast at both Gabon and Bonny to acquire slaves, with purchases depending on local availability and negotiation time with local kings, and the need to replace crew. (The high mortality among ships' crews reflected not only the duration of the voyage, but months on the coast of Africa.) Sailing from Africa with stops to replenish water and supplies at Sao Tome and St Kitts. The average time for the Middle Passage between Africa and the West Indies in 1800 (per the database), was 56 days, with a standard deviation of 20 days, though with a heavy right tail skew.) (The stop at St Kitts probably was also to gain current information about prices in different West Indies markets.) The voyage from St Kitts to Jamaica might be week or so. The data on the duration of the voyage comes from port records and reports in Lloyd's List; it is generally not an estimate. This lack of understanding is precisely why articles such as this are useful: they show what was usual, not what was exceptional, especially when notability depends on the exceptional (disasters, wrecks, massacres, etc.) not representativeness. Of course the history is assembled from disparate sources. The sources not only provide verifibility, listing of sources is also forward looking, it directs interested readers to reliable sources. Authors such as Behrendt and Inikori are addressing specific issues with the slave trade, such as the careers of captains and mortality among them, and mortality among slaves, and the profitability of the slave trade. These questions require aggregate data, based on individual voyage or vessel info, without digressing into more detailed examination of each voyage. The profitability data on the slave trade that has survived comes from completed voyages; the year Lune was lost, 22% of British slave ships were captured or wrecked on their voyages. A moment's thought would lead one to realize that the completed voyages (not all of which were particularly profitable), had to pay for the unsuccessful ones. To continue in business, Case had to make a profit on the vessels that came back that covered his losses on Lune. And what of the entrepreneurs who tried slave trading and quit after one truncated, or simply unprofitable voyage? And before someone objects that insurance covered the losses, insurance premia take expected losses into account. Even the letter of marque database, which too is a secondary source, provides confirmatory or corrective information on vessels and masters. Acad Ronin (talk) 19:03, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * So, as expected, not a single source with significant coverage just databases (and the marque database is extremely minimal too boot), mentions in Lloyds, and so on. Fram (talk) 19:40, 24 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete per Acad Ronin's keep vote. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:00, 24 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Weak delete Article lacks substantive sources specifically about this ship, just database entries or comprehensive listings of ships' movements. Discussion of the slave trade's profitability and mortality and voyages' usual or exceptional statistics might be better included in pages like Slave ship, List of slave ships, Atlantic_slave_trade, or a new subarticle rather than those of individual non-notable ships. Reywas92Talk 23:30, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:11, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Redirect to List of slave ships as an alternative to deletion. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 05:35, 25 October 2022 (UTC) Merge appropriate detail, with refs, into ship entry in Lune (ship) and in List of slave ships, and redirect to Lune (ship). 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 03:49, 27 October 2022 (UTC) Merge and redirect to List of slave ships. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 19:58, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. None of the sources are about this ship specifically. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:58, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete -- No problem with the truth of the article, but any individual slave ship will be NN, unless there is something very special about it. The length of the voyage (which surprised the nom) is probably not unusual.  It often took some time to dispose of a cargo and collect a lading of slaves.  Peterkingiron (talk) 18:23, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Merge appropriate detail, with refs, into ship entry in Lune (ship) and in List of slave ships. Davidships (talk) 00:29, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Relisting comment: Redirect is emerging as potential outcome but at the moment there's no consensus on the target. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star   Mississippi  01:45, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment - The Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade Database is a reliable secondary source (where describes it above as "primary", that is not in the WP context, but just in the general sense of a principal source). Davidships (talk) 12:10, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment -- Yes it is a RS, but that does not alter the fact that the ship is NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:56, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Merge into List of slave ships; no significant coverage. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:15, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to List of slave ships would be the best solution, since information for a standalone article about this ship named Lune is sketchy. TH1980 (talk) 23:34, 12 November 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.