Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vere (1790 ship)

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. The argument to merge is weak; merging a non-notable topic into a DAB isn't based in policy, and no other viable target has been provided. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:49, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vere (1790 ship)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

"May have been", "little is known", "it is not clear", "apparently", "it will require original research": not clear why this was ever created, but shouldn't be kept any longer. Lacks all notability, in case it wasn't clear. Fram (talk) 16:06, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and England. Fram (talk) 16:06, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Never should have been created. Wikipedia is neither a database nor a purveyor of original research. I'm alarmed this was created just two years ago, and not in say 2005. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:34, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge info into Vere (ship) as a non-hyperlinked note, unless the author can rewrite and provide citations. It does seem to be self-evidently non-notable. Weird. It's me... Sallicio!^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 16:44, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
From that target: "Vere (1790 ship) may have been a whaler in the British Southern Whale Fishery between 1790 and 1793." We don't deal in speculation. Also, it is not possible to "delete and merge info" for attribution reasons. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:52, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and previous comments, obviously. RobinCarmody (talk) 18:13, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination. Unlike, say, the proposed USS United States (CVA-58), there is zero information as to whether the Vere was even designed but not ever built, much less existed. TH1980 (talk) 02:34, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As an inclusionist, my preference is to change Wikipedia only when no knowledge would be lost as a result. I learned a long time ago that destruction is much easier than preservation, let alone improvement. Wikipedia has a constructive way of dealing with articles like this, by adding in a stub designation. Doing so facilitates incremental improvement, and even major improvement. I frequently find that when I am working on one vessel in a trade (whaler, convict transport, slave ship, etc.), I find a line about another vessel. That line is not enough to justify an article, but one can add it to an extant article, building up a story. As for major improvement, last week I noticed that someone had edited an article I had put up more than a year earlier. It turned out that the editor had found a book published in 2022 with the vessel's name (Morning Star), in the title, a book all about a particularly horrific act of piracy perpetrated against the vessel's crew and passengers, making the vessel highly notable. I cannot predict, when, if ever, something like this would occur with Vere, but the cost of keeping the option open seems to be nil.Acad Ronin (talk) 16:26, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with inclusionism; however, there's no way we can keep this as a stand-alone. The best thing to do, to keep the information, is to merge the info into the disambiguation page. It's me... Sallicio!^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 01:43, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have provided no actual justification for retaining this article. Posting the exact same anecdote about some other ship stub in multiple AfDs will not get you anywhere. I'm not convinced you understand how Wikipedia notability works. We don't keep things purely because "someday it might end up being notable". In the extremely unlikely event someone creates a book about this ship, the article can be recreated at that time. I have dedicated a significant amount of time to improving articles, so I am uninterested in hearing paeans to how "destruction is much easier than preservation". This is a stub that anyone could have written in less than 10 minutes tops, and is non-notable by any reasonable interpretation of our notability guidelines. Wikipedia is not a mirror of databases. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 13:56, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: a merge to a disambiguation page where it would be an entry without an article is not allowed, disambiguation pages are not lists of non-notable subjects but pointers to articles with the same or a very similar name. No article for the 1790 ship = no entry at the disambiguation. It's like a disambiguation for John Smith: only the notable John Smiths are included, the many non-notable John Smiths don't get short entries there. Fram (talk) 08:30, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Then merge the information into the closest ship to the hypothesized 1790 ship, perhaps as a "possible predecessor" or "possible successor." If the ship actually was in existence, it would be a shame to delete the knowledge because of a technical failure of inclusion. It's me... Sallicio!^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 11:46, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That would be pure WP:OR though. Fram (talk) 12:12, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTEVERYTHING. As Fram says, this would be speculation, blatant original research, and wholly inappropriate for any self-respecting encyclopedia. It astounds me how some will dedicate such effort to retaining garbage stubs like this while ignoring AfDs for actually notable subjects such as lane sharing. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 13:58, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fram, I agree completely. It wouldn't be pure OR, Trainsandotherthings. The stub has references; however, they would need to be verified (presumably by the author, if s/he cares to have the information remain in the wiki). I'm just an inclusionist at heart. It's me... Sallicio!^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 15:57, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any reference for it being a predecessor or successor to that other ship? If not, it is pure WP:OR to call it a possible prede- or successor or to link them in any way. Fram (talk) 16:01, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The inclusionist/deletionist spectrum is entirely irrelevant. We don't make things up without evidence, period. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:05, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Trainsandotherthings, relax. No one is suggesting that we should "make things up." I don't think either one of you understand what I'm saying. I'm saying the article as it stands should be deleted, but with the information being merged into another relevant article if the references can assert notability and can be verified. Fram, I don't have any references for anything for this ship. It's not my responsibility. If the author wants it to stay in WP, s/he needs to bring it up to standards. It doesn't matter to me if the article goes, stays, or gets printed out and sent to the Moon with Artemis. It's me... Sallicio!^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 16:47, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge significant and verifiable info, with refs, into its entry at Vere (ship). Davidships (talk) 00:15, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not inherently opposed to merging significant and verifiable info. The issue is, I don't see any in the article at present. With She never appeared in Lloyd's Register or Lloyd's List so little is known about her origins and fate. Some records state that she was built in 1774, but it is not clear under what name. and It will require original research to establish anything more. we should not be merging anything. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 12:53, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.