Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Provisioning of the RMS Titanic


 * 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 with RMS Titanic. No keep arguments, no clear consensus reached between merge and delete so article is merged as the least destructive path  Jody B'''   talk 23:59, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Provisioning of the RMS Titanic

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate a collection of nn statistics (a grocery list? c'mon). Clarityfiend 03:44, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. JJL 03:57, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, unencyclopedic. --Dhartung | Talk 04:11, 2 July 2007 (UTC)\
 * Could you expand on your reasoning? Just brushing it off as "unencyclopedic" tells us nothing. Morgan Wick 04:33, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge with RMS Titanic. I don't think the information is inherently unencyclopedic.  But it's only encyclopedic within the context of the ship and the story of its sinking.  The information is notable because of its association with the sinking of the unsinkable ship.  ≈≈Carolfrog≈≈♦тос♦ 04:22, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. As fascinating as it may be that the ship had 20,000 bottles of beer onboard, the provisions were not notable to my knowledge. I'm not opposed to merging into the main article.  Someguy1221 04:23, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete and don't merge. ("Delete and merge" raises GFDL concerns.) This info isn't notable even within the context of the sinking. Does anyone even care how much beer the ship had on board? What does that have to do with the sinking? Was the food going to be used as a floatation device? Morgan Wick 04:33, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. Whether "anyone" cares is irrelevant.  I (for one) thought it was interesting, but that is not a valid argument in a deletion debate.  However, just because the beer had nothing to do with the sinking itself doesn't mean it is not historically significant in the context of the historical significance of the ship itself.  There may be sources (which I am too lazy and sleepy to find at the moment) which would provide a scholarly analysis of the provisioning of the Titanic.   ≈≈Carolfrog≈≈♦тос♦ 04:41, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I agree that the historical/cultural angle is the crux. There are ships' provision lists where there's such an angle making it worth documenting: for instance, 1800s British naval ships and the gross amounts of alcohol they carried; or the (by some accounts) toxic tinned food and ludicrous amounts of tableware carted around by the John Franklin expedition; or early polar expeditions where the lists show they grossly underestimated the calorific requirements. But this has no such angle; it's just food. Gordonofcartoon 02:17, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - well in the territory of WP:NOT,"Articles which are primarily comprised of statistical data". What context can there be but the blindingly obvious one that it was a big ship so had to carry lots of food? Gordonofcartoon 12:43, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge with RMS Titanic --Jacques Pirat Talk 16:16, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge with [RMS Titanic article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CraigMonroe (talk • contribs)
 * Delete per Gordon. I'm also opposed to merger, because this trivial list could expand to infinite size.  How many bars of laundry soap, anyone?  Spare bolts for generic repairs?  Spools of thread for mending uniforms?    RGTraynor  17:54, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge with RMS Titanic]. How could a list of food on board expand to infinite size? If someone found accurate info on exactly how many raisins and toothpicks were on nboard, such trivial info could be edited out. The food on board is a large part of what makes to be a luxury cruise. It is not miscellaneous information, because it is the actual provisions on board one of history's most famous and disastrous cruises. We do not have to remove all information from coverage of a disaster-related Wikipedia subject  which did not contribute directly to the disaster. If all they served was bread and water, the rich and famous would not have been on board. Edison 23:10, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - there are literally thousands of pages of archival documents relating to this topic. They all amount to trivia, in a historical perspective.  --Haemo 01:04, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge with RMS Titanic]. The list IS encyclopedic - perhaps obsessively so :) - but that's part of the fun of a paper free encyclopedia made up of 0101010101's - we can keep this sort of fascinating but obscure information. Paxse 14:20, 10 July 2007 (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.