Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Passenger and Crew list of the SS Gothenburg


 * 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 closed as list have been reincorporated into article as per GA review suggestion of using collapsible lists, hence this list no longer required. Gnangarra 11:29, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Passenger and Crew list of the SS Gothenburg

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

(A previous editor tagged it with a prod for notability that was removed, so I have listed it here.) Not sure if this list meets notability requirements. WP:BIO states that lists of people are assumed to be lists of notable people, and not exhaustive lists of all people associated with a notable subject. The ship is notable and has its own article at SS Gothenburg. Prior to this article being forked off from SS Gothenburg there was some discussion here as to the notability of the passenger and crew lists. Bellhalla (talk) 17:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge to SS Gothenburg, which already lists the 22 survivors. This would be 112 names at most, and would add to the parent article. Mandsford (talk) 22:02, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep the mentioned discussion on notability reached a consensus that the information was notable but concluded that it could be better presented in a separate list. The majority of the passengers and crew of the SS Gothenburg have had places name in their honor, many of the passengers have notability in their own right. This list was made into a daughter article after extensive discussion about how best to present the information on both the vessel as well as the Passengers and Crew. Gnangarra 00:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. I followed your link to make sure you were talking about the same discussion I had read. I didn't really see much of a consensus there. It looks like 2 thought it should be moved to its own article (I think), while 1 (me) felt it should be removed (but leaving any notable individuals). I had also posed a question as to why WP:BIO should have been excepted (as was suggested by another editor), a question which was never addressed. — Bellhalla (talk) 01:37, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * comment ...majority of the passengers and crew of the SS Gothenburg have had places name in their honor... that show that the list is of people of note, in addition there were a number of people who are independently in their own right prior to boarding the vessel. WP:BIO is about list in terms of alumni where there are/will be infinite numbers of people who pass through the doors over time, such lists should not be comprehensive list of Alumni. It doesnt address passengers of one  vessel involved in one incident where a significant majority have had places named in their honor. While some these people may warrant articles individually, many are only notable is from this one event thus combined into a single list is an appropriate way to display the detail, see WP:LIST. Ive moved the article to List of passengers and crew on the SS Gothenburg Gnangarra 10:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: By your reasoning that all on the list are notable because they were aboard Gothenburg seems to point the argument to WP:BIO1E — Bellhalla (talk) 13:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * comment yeah it does sound like a WP:BLP1E except they arent living, but the principle is the same in that they are notable as a group from this one event and as such they should be covered within that context. Using the same BPL1E reasoning one comes to conclusion that merge is the only alternative. Which when applying Coverage in Reliable sources may at times be extensive and may expand upon the person's background, but information on the person should generally be included in the article on the event itself, unless the information is so large that this would make the article unwieldy which is the case for this list, where the article has a summary list of survivors only Gnangarra 14:31, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Honour rolls and the like are routinely deleted and removed from articles as not being encyclopedic and this is a long-standing convention. A list of all the fatalities resulting from the September 11 terrorist attacks was recently deleted on these grounds. --Nick Dowling (talk) 09:56, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * KEEP if the Titanic can merit a separate article on survivors and perished, then the Gothenburg can too. There has been much discussion of the issue on the Gothenburg's talk page, and it was agreed to split the list into a daughter article. Now that has been done, the one person who was against its inclusion at all seem to be trying to get it deleted again. Note that the naming of roads after the victims was the reason that the SS Gothenburg article was nominated for DYK.Mjroots (talk) 12:22, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS should not be a reason to keep this list. Also, the information has not been deleted before as far as I am aware (or if it was, I had nothing whatsoever to do with it), so I am not trying to "get it deleted again". Please assume good faith. — Bellhalla (talk) 13:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * for the record this diff from the prior dicussion. Gnangarra 08:03, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Your final point could be addressed in the main article by saying something along the lines of "Many streets in Coconut Grove and Milner were named for victims of the wreck." and follow with a few examples, especially if any of the streets are major streets. — Bellhalla (talk) 13:53, 20 February 2008 (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.