Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/X-class lifeboat


 * 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 redirect to Royal National Lifeboat Institution lifeboats. I must discount the "keep" opinions because they are not policy-based. They appeal to the supposed importance of the institution that uses these boats. But long-established policies and guidelines direct that importance (Google hits, Youtube followers, etc.) is not relevant for inclusion. Only substantial coverage in reliable sources is. That is a consequence not only of WP:GNG, but also of WP:V, a core policy. Such coverage is presumed only in certain special cases, like politicians, that don't apply here. The "keep" opinions do not attempt to provide references to such sources, and must therefore be disregarded. If such sources are later found, sourceable content may be merged from the history, or the article may be recreated.  Sandstein  07:28, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

X-class lifeboat

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Does not meet WP:GNG. It is absurd that we have an article about a particular model of an inflatable boat used by a volunteer organization and I can find almost no sources for this and certainly not any that establish notability. Rusf10 (talk) 17:16, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 17:16, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 17:16, 7 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. EpicPupper (talk) 17:18, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 17:18, 7 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep (and merge) as I explained when I deprodded this, this should be merged not deleted as it is an important aspect of an encyclopaedic topic - this boat is an integral part of the operation of the Tyne class lifeboat and can be an integral part of operations of the Shannon class lifeboat and Mersey class lifeboat (if it was related to just one of these then it would be merged with nobody even considering deletion). There is no single article that currently fits the bill as a merge target, but I'd suggest possibly RNLI lifeboat tenders (that may or may not be the best title) covering this (X class), and the XP class lifeboat, Y class lifeboat and any earlier (I think it unlikely this was the first, but I'm not a subject matter expert). That the nominator dismisses the RNLI as just a volunteer organisation indicates that they have either failed to read/understand that article or are attempting to misrepresenting things (I hope it is the former) - while the RNLI is a charity it and the vessels it operates are no less notable for that fact than for example the US Coast Guard which (AIUI) carries out the equivalent role in the USA as part of its remit. Thryduulf (talk) 19:25, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Since you're using a Coast Guard Comparison. Do we have any articles about inflatable Coast Guard boats? Of course not. More importantly, the topic needs to pass WP:GNG and this simply does not.--Rusf10 (talk) 23:07, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Now read my whole comment again and respond to what I actually wrote. Thryduulf (talk) 00:31, 13 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep/redirect (title) and merge (content) to Royal National Lifeboat Institution lifeboats. Or preferably, per, merge X-class lifeboat and XP-class lifeboat (and perhaps Y-class lifeboat) into a combined article covering these similar/overlapping subjects. (Each subject may not have independent notability, but there would seem to be sufficient sources/precedence for a combined entry.) Guliolopez (talk) 20:34, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. Of course it's notable. That "volunteer organization" is the British national maritime lifesaving organisation with a royal charter and lifeboat stations throughout the British Isles. You make it sound like a little one-rowing boat service in some minor town. See Category:Royal National Lifeboat Institution lifeboats. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:32, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * That's a straw man argument. The article we are discussing here is about an inflatable life boat, not the the Royal National Lifeboat Institution which has its own article. Please provide an actual reason to keep this article.--Rusf10 (talk) 23:07, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I have done. Because it's notable. Just as any type of major equipment used by a national organisation of this kind would be considered notable. And it was quite legitimate to question your use of the term "volunteer organization", which suggested you didn't really know what the RNLI was or the status and importance it (and therefore its equipment) holds within the UK, as has also been pointed out to you by Thryduulf. I have no objection to merging, but I certainly do to deletion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:52, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   16:41, 15 May 2021 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment Sources for Y-class ( and ) could be used here too. Not that they are particularly great. LizardJr8 (talk) 23:35, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   19:57, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Merge as per Thryduulf. MrsSnoozyTurtle 11:09, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep, definitely notable. I don't normally do nationalism, but this is a major piece of equipment used by the national sea rescue organisation of an island country of 60 million inhabitants, whose naval history over a 500-year period was rivalled only by those of Spain, the Netherlands and France. The sea is a vital part of the UK's history, and even now a vital part of our culture. Loads of people wouldn't consider going to the coast without dropping a coin in an RNLI donation box. It's built in to how we are. Everyone in the UK who's so much as dipped a toe in the sea will stand firm behind the RNLI. I appreciate it's not automatic that the historical and cultural relevance of the RNLI should make a page on a lifeboatman's wellington boot automatically notable, but this particular inflatable is quite a serious bit of kit. Merely being inflatable doesn't stop it from being notable. It's hard to work out how to define notability in maritime vessels, but it seems to me that a boat can be notable because it does something notable, or is operated in notable numbers by a notable organisation, as well as merely for being a big lump of metal. Elemimele (talk) 16:16, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * It is still an inflatable boat and notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. Even after a month of discussion, nobody has come up with any reliable sources. The article is basically sourced to fansites.--Rusf10 (talk) 16:38, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I was rather metaphorically singing rule-Britannia there, which isn't what AfD is about, and I apologise. But my genuine point is this: we really need to look at what makes a class of boat 'notable'. I don't think notability should depend on inflatability. The original request for deletion is based on three things: that it's inflatable, that it's run by a volunteer organisation, and that it isn't well cited. The first two are irrelevant (in my personal opinion). The last one is valid (though generally we're discouraged from deleting merely because of lack of citation). It's also hard for a class of boat to get itself cited in good secondary sources because the only people who write about sorts of boats are boat-fanatics; boats are inevitably going to be in fairly niche magazines that can easily be written-off as fan-zines. I used sports-people as a parallel. They're notable if they appeared in a major game/event (notability is correctly achieved by what they did, but interpreted in a fairly inclusive way, because they don't actually have to be on a winning side, appear more than once, or be someone anyone's heard of). Just as a footballer becomes notable because Manchester United chose to field him in a big match, I felt a boat might achieve notability because an important organisation chooses to field it in an important role. That's presumably the justification for the Combat Rubber Raiding Craft (which is a specific class of boat, not a general term like 'lifeboat') and the LCRL boats, which are of military relevance and fielded by the US military. But I would settle for Merge if there's somewhere good to merge it, though based largely on the lack of information on the page. But this makes me a bit nervous because we should decide deletion based on notability, not on whether the page is well-written and complete. Oh, it's hard for boats! Even actual instances of boat generally tend to be notable because they sank in an interesting way. Even the Titanic wouldn't be notable by its size alone. I will, however, have a look to see if there are any citations available for the X-class life-boat because citations do seem highly relevant. Elemimele (talk)
 * I'm really sorry to keep writing. Looking into this, it's a bit messy, because there is also a well-written and relevant article on Inflatable rescue boat which lacks any citations whatsoever, but does refer to a page on the RNLI's Y-class boats. Now the Y-class boats superseded the X-class in the same role, and if one isn't notable, nor is the other. Here's a constructive suggestion: that a page be created for all classes of boarding-boat operated from a traditional life-boat, which could replace the X- and Y-class pages, and anything else anyone else finds. The concept of having a mini-lifeboat launchable from a major-lifeboat is surely notable, as a tool in sea rescue, and this would avoid a multitude of highly-specific little pages with not much on them?? Just a thought... Elemimele (talk) 20:32, 3 June 2021 (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.