Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/USS Barracuda (SP-23)


 * 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. Kurykh (talk) 06:02, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

USS Barracuda (SP-23)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Considering it was never even acquired, let alone commissioned, I see zero claim to notability. Iazyges  Consermonor   Opus meum  05:59, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. What a sad little story, with no notability or educational value whatsoever. Jack N. Stock (talk) 07:24, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep -- I'll repeat my comments from a recent debate over deleting a similar article: A few years ago, to improve Wikipedia′s rather sparse coverage of the U.S. Navy in World War I, I embarked on a solo effort to develop an entire series of articles on the vast section patrol program of incorporating civilian ships and craft into the Navy. (Wikipedia's coverage of the U.S. Navy is very biased toward the American Civil War, World War II, and very recent naval operations.) I wrote hundreds of articles covering the various boats and ships, and Wikipedia's coverage now is more or less complete, subject to new sources of information arising. A few of the ships and craft appear in Navy and other records under the name and SP numbers they would have had if they had been commissioned, but they never were. For the sake of completeness and to eliminate all confusion, I included these in my project when I could find out enough about them to do so. Their notability derives from the association with the section patrol program, not from their individual histories. It always disappoints me to see the nomination of real history articles for deletion when Wikipedia retains so many trivial articles on science fiction characters and video games and whatnot, but if this really is taking up too much room on a server and needs to be deleted, then please ensure you retain the knowledge imparted in the deleted article by including all relevant information on a shipindex or other page elsewhere in Wikipedia so that knowledge of the vessel is not lost. If you are not going to do that, then please leave the article alone. Mdnavman (talk) 12:47, 8 March 2017 (UTC)mdnavman
 * I agree with you on the fictional cruft, I've always thought there should be a fiction Wikipedia separate from the real enyclopedia. If you want to work on making a list that has images and info on the different SP ships I'd down to help. Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  13:35, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * In response to Mdnavman's comments above, one way to handle this would be to have a list of ships in this situation (eg, registered for possible service with the USN but never acquired) - the sourcing seems more likely to establish notability for such a group rather than the individual ships. Nick-D (talk) 10:51, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:32, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:32, 8 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete: Not a U.S. warship.-- Jim in Georgia  Contribs  Talk  18:01, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete -- an unremarkable civilian vessel, I'm afraid. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:16, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: They also serve who only stand and wait. Jack N. Stock (talk) 20:32, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment I disagreed that the consensus was delete and myself !voted keep at Articles for deletion/USS Wistaria (SP-259). However, I think the case is weaker for this article than for the Wisteria, and can't bringmyself to !vote keep, unless I saw more evidence of notability. Smmurphy(Talk) 23:01, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete As this was a small watercraft never actually acquired or commissioned by the US Navy there's no reason to think that sufficent sources are available to establish notability. The article's title is misleading. Nick-D (talk) 10:49, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - I see no claim to notability, nor sufficient referencing to show it. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:40, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete, not notable for stand alone article; trivial. Kierzek (talk) 14:44, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Don't think there's enough to establish notability. Hawkeye7 (talk) 18:43, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - Fails WP:GNG. CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   20:17, 15 March 2017 (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.