Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Minerva (1864)


 * 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 delete. Spartaz Humbug! 22:30, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Minerva (1864)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

It possibly existed, and nothing is known about it... So why exactly is this an article? Clearly not notable. I'm going to nominate several other articles about non-notable ships in the coming days, as there are many articles about similar subjects. 😎HellaswagdabXD😎emoji😎Talk 18:00, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:18, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:18, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:18, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete as original research or speculation. I read the reports by James Teer but I cannot conclude that there was definitely a ship named Minerva. Neither do I find any other mentions in historical sources. To preserve accuracy, Wikipedia should only report what has been already researched and published. Till someone researches this topic, I would suggest this article stay deleted.--DreamLinker (talk) 06:35, 2 April 2018 (UTC) Based on new evidence, I am changing my opinion.--DreamLinker (talk) 07:38, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete as unverifiable. No Minerva listed in Lloyd's Register for 1863, 1864 or 1865. Mjroots (talk) 15:42, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete interesting but not enough evidence to justify an article Lyndaship (talk) 17:26, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment I agree- the mystery is interesting, its just to little of an article.💵Money💵emoji💵Talk 18:00, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I found it!. Per later sources - - "Minerva of Leith" was shipwrecked on 10 May 1864, four survivors rescued 25 March 1865.Icewhiz (talk) 11:07, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep - the WP:RS now fully support the stub. XavierItzm (talk) 11:22, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment I still think it qualifies; It existed, sure, but the first and third sources still give little information, while the second one is noted to be unverified. Great work on finding those sources though, I would have never been able to find them.💵Money💵emoji💵Talk 11:30, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * - the question in my mind is whether we have a list of shipwrecks this would be a good merge to - perhaps List of shipwrecks of Oceania?Icewhiz (talk) 11:31, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, there is a New Zealand section on there, so that would be the ideal place to merge.💵Money💵emoji💵Talk 13:09, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Or the List of shipwrecks in 1864? Mjroots (talk) 17:43, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * either is fine for me.💵Money💵emoji💵Talk 18:44, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Merge to List of shipwrecks in 1864, based on new evidence. I really appreciate the effort by to find the information. I guess we can add it to the list and maintain a redirect.--DreamLinker (talk) 07:38, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   07:15, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Merge to List of shipwrecks in 1864. Does not sustain a standalone article at the moment.Icewhiz (talk) 07:27, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Uh-oh The boxes on that page don't seem to work, and it considers the code for a new box actual text, so it just messes up the boxes.. Maybe its just my terrible computer, but I think merging or adding any new ships to that page is impossible. 💵Money💵emoji💵Talk 14:39, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * - I entered it there - works in the source editor, do not know about the visual.Icewhiz (talk) 14:46, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks alot. I was using the source editor, though, not the visual editor, and did exactly what you did...... Whatever, its in there now.💵Money💵emoji💵Talk 14:49, 9 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Merge into article on the General Grant (ship) as the article relates to an item found by its crew while marooned on Enderby Island. A check of New Zealand newspapers of the period do not show any wrecked or missing ships named the Minerva wrecked in the time period. If there was one it would be noted. There were two other wrecks in the vicinity - (Grafton and Invercauld) which could explain the item. There were no reports of a rescue of sailors in 1865 from a ship called Minerva and all the references cited by Icewhiz appear to be based on the General Grant crews account. NealeFamily (talk) 23:16, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I have now more thoroughly checked the references used by Icewhiz and found that all rely on the story by James Teer of the General Grant. The second source cited and published in 1907 refers to its author being unable to corroborate the sinking of a ship called the Minerva. I can only conclude that the article found was from the Invercauld which sank on 10 May 1864 at that location. I do not support it being added to the List of shipwrecks in 1864 as there is no reliable evidence to substantiate the Minerva's existence. The rightful place for the story is under the General Grant NealeFamily (talk) 06:30, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree that there are no other sources, including Lloyd's or other reports, for the sinking of a ship called Minerva. Nonetheless, my preceding sentence is WP:OR!!!  Just as much as your (possibly correct) contention that "the article found was from the Invercauld".  More WP:OR!  Original research has no place on Wikipedia.  Absent WP:RS that unequivocally dispute the existence and sinking of the Minerva, it would be a WP:POLICIES violation to substitute your WP:OR or mine for the following fact: Icewhiz found two rock-solid WP:RS which state witness claims for the sinking of the Minerva.  Respect for policies and sources requires keeping the article, until other reliable sources disprove the facts. XavierItzm (talk) 10:37, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * To avoid WP:OR you need to look at the three sources Icewhiz cites as supporting the existence of the Minerva. All three rely on James Teer's chronicle from the Southland Times of 15 January 1868 - https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/ST18680115.2.9. In the newspaper article he states .. we found .. a stave which was written with charcoal the words "Minerva .... The writer, Teer, and the subsequent publications all rely on this stave as evidence for the existence of a ship called Minerva being wrecked. There is no other evidence. The second source cited by Icebiz and published in 1907 refers to its author being unable to corroborate the sinking of a ship called the Minerva. No original research is needed to cast doubt on the ships existence. This second source is the WP:RS that does that = see the footnote on page xxvii - https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/44371#page/31/mode/1up
 * Just for clarity, I agree my contention that it was most likely the Invercauld is speculative by myself and therefore WP:OR. My argument is that there is insufficient evidence for a standalone article on a ship that most likely does not exist or is at best one of mistaken identity. NealeFamily (talk) 09:10, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Saying this was Invercauld would be OR (without a source. And I'll note that this would've been a very small boat or ship with a 5 man crew - if it existed - not a large noteworthy vessel either way). It seems some sources were convinced that this alleged ship existed or possibly existed (there are a few more than repeat this - but don't have preview - I think I saw this in parliamentary records too) - enough to list it. It seems that if we are to retain (in a list) the Minerva - we should place the equivalent of an asterisk next to it - saying this is based on so and so, and that there are some doubts.Icewhiz (talk) 10:40, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure 5 man boat would be sailing that far south unless they had a death wish. Anyway, I agree that saying it was the Invercauld would be OR. It would not be OR if you stated the Ínvercauld was wrecked on the same day. As to there being other records, that may well be true but all those that I have found to date are referenced back to the statement by James Teer. There is no other source that pre-dates his statement or references to some other evidence as far as I can find. If you have found one let me know. I think putting this in the General Grant (ship) article would retain the story and turning this into a redirect would assist readers. NealeFamily (talk) 05:12, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 15:30, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. there does not seem to be any confirmable evidence that such a ship ever existed.  DGG ( talk ) 21:36, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. Aside from the questions over whether or not Minerva existed, so little is known it does not seem worth having its own article when the key details are on List of shipwrecks in 1864. Dunarc (talk) 22:54, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete -- The whole thing seems highly speculative. Minerva ... Leith suggests to me a vessel whose home port was near Edinburgh in Scotland.  Peterkingiron (talk) 17:43, 26 April 2018 (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.