User talk:Viv Hamilton/Ship notability

This page has been created in response to a discussion at WP:Ships. The text of the discussion is reproduced below.

SS Timothy Bloodworth

Article has been AfD'd for second time. Mjroots (talk) 07:17, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

I've had this reply from an editor who voted to delete the article after I pointed out to him that ships are generally notable enough to have an article.

You say "The vast majority if ships are considered notable enough to have articles by WP:SHIPS," but I cannot find on that project page where they seek to draw a bright line between notable and nonnotable ships. Ship just says one is a "large vessel that floats on water," and that they are larger than boats. I cannot agree that every large vessel that floats on water is inherently notable. Perhaps there is some discussion of this issue buried in the discussion page archives. Do you suppose that if there were a project on locomotives, the members might decide that every locomotive (by engine number, not just model) was notable? Or a project on fire engines might decide that every fire engine in every fire station is notable? Or a project on airplanes might decide that every airplane (or airliner or warplane) is notable? Etc for farm tractors, churches, elementary schools, restaurants, buses, bus stops, libraries, broadcast towers, water towers, etc down to any definable and listable items? People who gravitate to a project tend to like the things the project covers. I do not agree that starting a project gives the participants license to decide which things related to the project are inherently notable and exempt from the requirements of WP:N to show substantial coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources, beyond the directory listings which satisfy verifiability. I agree that a great many ships are notable as the earliest of its type (Hunley, Monitor, Dreadnought), fastest, most luxurious, most heavily armed (Bismarck), most unfortunate in its demise (Vasa, Titanic, Normandy), most successful or least successful in battle, because these have all been written about extensively in secondary sources, and easily satisfy WP:N. Many ships were important in commerce, exploration, scientific research, or war, but more were unremarkable other than directory information. A project does great good for Wikipedia in improving and standardizing articles, and listing article in need of writing. I do not envision Wikipedia as a mirror of every directory, with stub entries about every landing craft, merchant marine ship, Liberty Ship, or tugboat, any more than I want to see an article about every broadcast tower or every city street or every other fungible thing with no real "biography" other than directory information.Bloodworth was a "standard Liberty ship" which was in 3 convoys before it was scrapped, and saw action on one. I could write an equal article about any of the millions of soldiers in WW2 who was in 1 battle, or the tank or plane or Jeep he rode in, if similar directory listings were available, but they would not satisfy WP:N. Edison (talk) 18:25, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Can anyone point him to where we have our guidelines to notability please? Mjroots (talk) 18:38, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Notability of Merchant ships

Looks like we are going to have to grab the bull by the horns and set down a set of notablility criteria for merchant ships.

To make a start, I'd like to propose that

1. All sailing ships of 100 tons or more are sufficiently notable in their own right, subject to usual rules about verifiability and reliable sources.
2. Sailing ships of less than 100 tons may be notable on a case by case basis.
3. All sailing ships that were sunk or otherwise shipwrecked shall be notable in their own right, subject to usual rules of verifiability and reliable sources.
4. A sailing ship shall be defined as one that uses sails as it primary means of propulsion. Fitment of an engine shall not disqualify the ship from being a sailing ship.
5. All steamships and motor vessels of 1,000 tons or more are sufficiently notable in their own right, subject to usual rules of verifiability and reliable sources.
6. All merchant ships requisitioned into naval service by any country are notable in their own right, subject to usual rules of verifiability and reliable sources.
7. All merchant ships sunk by enemy action in wartime (whether the ship belonged to a belligerent country or not) shall be sufficiently notable in their own right, subject to usual rules of verifiability and reliable sources.
8. All steamships and motor vessels sunk or shipwrecked shall be sufficiently notable in their own right, subject to usual rules of verifiability and reliable sources.
9. Steamships and motor vessels under 1,000 tons may be sufficiently notable in their own right, subject to usual rules of verifiability and reliable sources.
10. Entry of a merchant vessel on a register such as LLoyd's Register, Det Norske Veritas, American Bureau of Shipping or Nippon Kaiji Kyokai shall be considered as meeting WP:N.

OK, I've made a start, over to you. Mjroots (talk) 19:50, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the kickoff on this issue. Per our discussion Inherent notability on your talk page, I saw a lot of hard work and good results from this project, but little discussion of which floating vessels should have their own articles and which are not generally notable or belong in a list which collects "minor ships with routine service histories together in articles on the class" as was suggested in [[this discussion page earlier. Its fine to say "all commissioned ships are notable" but that argument has been used to keep all tugBOATs. The smallest navies in the world probably have some commissioned small speedboats which most of us would not judge worth of individual articles. Consensus guidelines can streamline the AFD process and even avoid worthy ships being nominated. I like to avoid having Wikipedia become a mirror of every enumerated thing in any directory. The general notability criterion of "significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent secondary sources" is a good guide. Not all ships (or tugboats, or minor craft with uneventful careers) meet that criterion, and Wikipedia is not a memorial. Edison (talk) 20:07, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

I find the inherent idea behind this discussion that a warship or a ship that participated in military action would be somehow inheritently more notable than a ship that saw no wartime action rather odd. IMHO notability guidelines shouls be written so that they do not rely on a ship's participation, or the lack thereof, in wars or other conflicts. Of course, a ship taking part in such matters gets more coverage in source material, but that then falls under the scope of notability and verifiablity. — Kjet (talk · contribs) 21:30, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

The distinction between boat and ship can be an arbitrary one. Just because a vessel is referred to as a boat in some contexts doesn't necessarily make it so. Many submarines are referred to as "boats" but I would not consider them on par with something like a PT boat or a sailboat, for example.

In looking at Mjroots' suggestions above, the key thing that jumps out at me is that most say "subject to usual rules of verifiability and reliable sources". If that's indeed a key component of these guidelines, why not just leave things the way they are and let the notability and verifiability rules handle it? — Bellhalla (talk) 05:17, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Bellhalla. I don't really see the point in making a bunch of arbitrary rules like this, when we already have wp:note and wp:v. Gatoclass (talk) 08:02, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

In response to Gatoclass I'd say that if we did have a set of rules then we are in a better position to avoid AfD debates like the current one for Timothy Bloodworth (above). The initial proposals I put forward are all up for debate and change and can be adopted, amended or discarded whatever the consensus is. Mjroots (talk) 08:25, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

AFDs are not necessarily bad things, though, in that they help establish consensus. Rather than proscribe any list of what's notable, perhaps we could have a list that describes what types or sizes or classes of ships are considered notable. For example, through many AFDs, there's a strong consensus that any commissioned ship meets notability requirements. I would also guess (but Kjet could probably say for sure), that there's a strong consensus in favor of ocean liners and cruise ships. With such a list, questionable AFDs (like that for Timothy Bloodworth) can be quickly refuted. — Bellhalla (talk) 12:16, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Of course, non-passenger ships are something of a poor relation as they generally get less coverage than cruise ships and liners. Suggest that Empire ships, Liberty ships and Victory ships all be considered notable too. Mjroots (talk) 12:27, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't know that I would go that far necessarily. A stronger case in that direction could be made for liberty ships and victory ships, since the ships of each type (or subtype for liberties) all had the same size, capacity, propulsion, etc. (That's not the case with the Empire ships.) But the key, I think, is in your first sentence where you say that they "get less coverage". Almost by definition, less coverage = less notability. — Bellhalla (talk) 13:42, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Is there any consensus as to what floating vessels would generally not be considered notable? Are the least boats belonging to a navy not "commissioned," which would be a bright line distinction? What about small harbor patrol boats of a navy, or some small country whose largest ship is a small speedboat with a machinegun? Edison (talk) 21:41, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Kjet above also thought that being in a military action might not be inherently notable. As these rules are about merchant vessels, which are generally distinct from military craft, is there an existing rule about military craft being inherently notable? If so, then a non-military vessel which becomes involved in the military field would acquire some of the characteristics which make military vessels notable. -- SEWilco (talk) 06:07, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Establishing rules for defining notability based on the size or status of a vessel (be it a boat or a ship) is problematic, because it can conflict with WP:V (and possibly WP:N). If we say, for instance, that a motor vessel under 1,000 tons (incidentally, which tons?) is inherently unnotable, would that mean that an article on a notable ship smaller than 1,000 tons (say a tug that participated in rescue efforts of several stricken vessels) would be deleted on sight even if it fullfills the notability and verifiability guidelines due to being covered in numerous thried-party sources?

IMHO our guideline cannot be "a ship of this-or-this status/shape/size/colour is inherently unnotable". Nor can it be "a ship of this-or-this status/shape/size/colour is inherently notable". It has to be based on verifiability first, everything else second. — Kjet (talk · contribs) 22:21, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I think proposed rules 1-4 accommodate those concerns. While I don't hang around AfD much, some project-adopted rules presuming notability at a certain level, and allowing for it at lower levels (in each case subject to normal sourcing standards), could head off repetitive attempts to delete. If that is a problem I think these proposed rules are a good start. Kablammo (talk) 23:28, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Kjet, I deliberately left tons as vague to stop arguments over which tons. Under the proposals I put forward, a tug that participated in a rescue of a stricken vessel should be notable enough for retention. Of course, a "grandfather rights" clause could always be inserted into the proposal. Mjroots (talk) 05:10, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

What concerns me is that trying to define a body of rules for this is (a) instruction creep (b) not necessarily supported by WP:NOTE and (c) potentially causing problems rather than alleviating them. For example, defining as notable "any steamship over 1,000 tons" completely ignores the fact that probably half the steamers built in the US in the 19th century were well under 1,000 tons. I'd prefer a rule that said, say, any vessel used as a liner by a steamship line would be considered notable, but why have a hard and fast rule at all? We already have WP:NOTE, for which the only criterion is that reliable sources have addressed the subject in a non-trivial way. That seems to me to be a lot more flexible than the suggestions being canvassed here. Gatoclass (talk) 12:53, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Gatoclass, all proposals are up for discussion. If 1,000 tons is too high, then it can be changed. Maybe 500 tons is a better figure, I don't know. None of my proposals are set in stone. I'm completely open to debate on this and if all ten get amended, so be it. Just trying to establish a basic set of criteria. The Aviation WikiProject has a set of rules defining notablity for aircraft crashes, which has saved more than one article from AfD in the past. Mjroots (talk) 20:02, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I think the rules need to be guidelines to help editors interpret how the standard notability criteria apply to ships. They need to provide for when an AFD should be deferred, to enable sources to be built up over time, versus recognising that sources are unlikely to be available. Rather than all ships meeting X criteria are automatically notable, the guidelines could be along the lines of:

I do not think the rules can say anything about inherent unnotability. It is also unclear it these rules are meant to apply only to modern ships or include historic ships. If these rules are adapted they should be limited to only:

1. Establishing inherent notability.
2. Applyed to modern ships. Historic ships may not meet the tonnage limits while still being notaqble or even inherently notabla.

-- Petri Krohn (talk) 21:03, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Viv Hamilton's proposal

1. Uncommissioned naval ships/boats are unlikely to be notable, unless multiple reliable sources can be provided. Any factual information concerning such vessels will normally be best included in an article or list about the class of vessel. Commissioning provides a miniumum set of factual information from a reliable source
2. Merchant ships will generally need to have been formally registered to be notable. Such registration will provide a miniumum set of factual information from a reliable source, but registration alone is not sufficient criteria for notability: other sources should be available.
3. Unregistered merchant ships will normally not be notable, unless there is some significant event such as a notable shipwreck, participation in a notable rescue, winning honours in a yacht race etc. Such events should have resulted in the multiple sources necessary for meeting the normal notability criteria.
4. A press release or other similar material from the owner/operator of a merchant ship is not sufficient on its own (or in conjunction with registration details) to prove notability
5. Shipwreck can render an otherwise non-notable ship notable. Multiple death is automatically considered to confer notability. A shipwreck in modern times should be covered by multiple sources, but a historic event may be supported by only a single reliable source.
6. Vessels performing a role of transporting people (merchant vessels - liners and ferries, and naval logistics vessels) are likely to be notable, by virtue of their impact upon human lives and communities. Multiple minor references in biograhic sources shall be considered to confer notability.
7. Cruise ships may have less claim to notability, although large size, longevity, uniqueness may confer notability. This should be confirmed by sources independent of the owner/operator.
8. Inclusion in a national register of historic ships or equivalent registers of cultural heritage automatically implies notability
9. Participation of a commissioned naval vessel in conflict generally implies notability. Multiple death on such a vessel is automatically considered to confer notability. Where the conflict involves multiple small vessels of a class (such as landing craft), whose individual contributions are not distinguished by secondary sources, such small vessels will generally not be notable individually, and will best be covered by an article on the craft type.
10. Merchant vessels taken into military service may be notable by virtue of either their merchant service or their military role or the combination of both.
11. Historic vessels that are more than 100 years old, (this definition selected for consistency with UNESCO convention on underwater culteral heritage) for which sources can be found are likely to be notable. This will include the vessels used for historically recorded voyages. However, an article should not be created for a vessel for which only the name is known. Facts about the vessel, not just the voyage are required. If only the name is known, the article should be about the voyage not the ship.
12. First of class, and vessels exhibiting technological changes, or other unique features are likely to be notable; notability should be able to be proved through technical references.

Viv Hamilton (talk) 10:59, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I like the proposed guidelines, although #7 (cruise ship notability) worries me a bit as the requirements of "large size, longevity [and/or] uniqueness" could be used as an argument for the deletion of several existing cruise ship articles, many of which lack these features but should perhaps be considered notable. Obviously as guidelines none of the proposals are set in stone, and criteria #2 also covers cruise ship notability in part. Never the less a clearer guideline on cruise ships, including number/stype of sources that should be provided might be preferrable. Apart from that minor detail I do not see a problem with these. — Kjet (talk · contribs) 13:57, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Just corrected a typo in #2 (Thanks Mjroots for pointing it out). Re #7, perhaps we should just delete it. Some of the modern cruise ships are so huge they are basically floating towns, and should de-facto qualify as notable. The main problem I see with any guidelines, is that if there are sources available when a new ship is launched, it seems to me to make sense to create an article for it - not wait 30 years for something notable to happen in its lifetime! So, perhaps the whole thing should have a bias towards keep, rather than delete articles on current registered/commissioned ships, provided that at least one source, other than the bare registration/commissioning entry, exists (not counting for this purpose any owner/operator press release). Viv Hamilton (talk) 18:48, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Rule #7 should be deleted. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 21:10, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Depending a bit on what is done regarding the other fields and establishing bias towards keep, guideline #7 should not nescessarily be deleted outright, if for no other reasons than clarity. Having a separate guideline for ferries & liners but not cruise ships could confuse editors. On the other hand simply repeating #2 in #7 does not accomplish much. In general, finding sources for most cruise ships should not be difficult due to the multitude of publications and websites on the subject, and as such a special notability clause like the one for ferries and liners is not nescessary as such. — Kjet (talk · contribs) 23:15, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Re #3, could hijacking by pirates be added? (I'm thinking of the current events off Somalia, MY Le Ponant is an example of this. Mjroots (talk) 05:00, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Presumably (modern) pirate attacks would be covered by the "etc" part in rule #3. Also, according to the Complete Guide to Cruising & Cruise Ships 2008, Le Ponant is registered with Lloyd's. — Kjet (talk · contribs) 13:17, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

One question regarding proposed rule #1 above: what is an "Uncommissioned naval ship"? Does it mean a ship still in the hands of the builders prior to handover to the navy? Petecarney (talk) 13:06, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

To use the U.S. as an example, ships of the Military Sealift Command are typically owned by the U.S. Navy but manned and operated by a civilian crew. Ships like these are used in support of military or naval operations but are not commissioned. — Bellhalla (talk) 13:52, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

That makes sense, same as the UK's Royal Fleet Auxiliary, Thanks Petecarney (talk) 23:04, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how that makes such ships less notable. They are mostly going to be of such a size as to meet other notability criteria anyway. It is always going to be easier to find info on current ships than it is on past ships. Mjroots (talk) 07:09, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Details of proposed rules

Above should be discussion about the proposed rules in general. This section is for discussion of details which should be considered if the rules are accepted. -- SEWilco (talk) 06:01, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

• Type of vessel: Group and use sublists for rules based upon type of vessel. I see two major groups: "sailing ship" and "steamship and motor vessel". -- SEWilco (talk) 06:01, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

• Tons: Follow the list with a note that 'tons' is intentionally ambiguous as the measures are sufficiently similar for these rules. -- SEWilco (talk) 06:01, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Inherent notability section

The idea that a "large ship" is 1,000 tons or more seems a bit of a low threshold to reach for "modern" ships, regardless of how "modern" is defined. The largest passenger ship record holder has been above 1,000 tons since 1838, above 10,000 tons since 1888, and above 100,000 tons since 1996. There seems not to be a comparable list of record holders for largest cargo/merchant ships, but if one looks at List of largest container ships, there are over 230 ships listed (only about 10 of which have articles) and all are 88,000 tons or larger. And the five ships (all supertankers) listed at List of world's largest ships by gross tonnage are all over 260,000 tons.

What I'd like to suggest is a sliding scale for large ships of different eras, as in the following chart, where I've selected numbers that're generally between 10% to 25% of the largest passenger ship of the era.

Era	Threshold
to 1890	1,000
1880–1900	2,000
1900–1950	5,000
1950–1990	10,000
1990 on	20,000

I'm suggesting this as a starting point and am open to changing the numbers or the era definitions. But I think it makes more sense than a blanket 1,000-ton standard. After all, a 2,000-ton ocean liner built in 1890 (when the record-holding passenger ship was 10,500 tons) is more likely to be notable than a 2,000-ton cruise ship built in 1990 (when the record-holder was 76,000 tons). — Bellhalla (talk) 16:31, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't like this

Just as I feared, this suggested guideline already looks like setting in stone a bunch of totally arbitrary rules about what does and does not qualify as notable. For goodness sakes, what is wrong with simply applying WP:NOTE? If a reliable source has written about it in a non-trivial way, it is notable, otherwise not. Gatoclass (talk) 16:45, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

The reasons behind these proposed guidelines is to try and prevent perfectly good articles being AfD'd. See SS Timothy Bloodworth and SS John Stagg. If we have a set of criteria in place then we can point AfD discussions to them. WP:AVIATION have a set of guidelines for aircraft crashes at WP:AIRCRASH. I have used these guidelines in the past to argue for the preservation of notable aircrash articles and argue for the deletion of non-notable aircrash articles. Mjroots (talk) 17:10, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm in general agreement with you, Gato. I think that this document should—like Wikipedia in general—describe rather than prescribe. Rather than setting an arbitrary threshold, we should describe what's currently considered notable as established through practice and through AFDs, etc. Things like the fact that commission naval ship are almost always found to be notable.

Mjroots, there is nothing wrong with an article going to AFD. Had SS Timothy Bloodworth never gone to AFD it would not have been improved to the level it is now, an A-Class article. It would have wallowed around in stub-dom. And, to be honest, I nominated SS John Stagg for AFD as a test case. Is a ship that has never done anything newsworthy inherently notable merely because it existed? If the result is keep (as it appears it will be given the way the discussion has evolved) then we will have a good, solid precedent that all Liberty ships are inherently notable. — Bellhalla (talk) 17:25, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

That would be a better approach I think. Gatoclass (talk) 07:55, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, if it is established that all Liberty ships are notable, then it must follow that the Victory ships would be included. One would hope, that by extension the Empire ships could also be included, although I appreciate that there is an important difference with those in that they are not of a uniform design. Mjroots (talk) 19:33, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, per the last AFD, Victory ships would be in along with Liberty ships. Empire ships I don't know enough about, but on the face of it I can't see much reason why they shouldn't be treated the same. Gatoclass (talk) 07:58, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes I do agree with the view that we should describe rather than proscribe, and also that these guidelines should be based on our experience. The footnotes can usefully be used to point at examples that form precedents. If you feel they are written in a proscriptive way please edit!! I think Belhalla's tonnage table is a good example (if the text around it is written as guidance), since it is giving guidance about the evolution of sizes of vessels. Viv Hamilton (talk) 10:52, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, the precedent has been set. Liberty ships and Victory ships are all inherently notable. So, that's 3,285 potential articles. . Mjroots (talk) 07:41, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I think that may be overstating the outcome a bit. I would view it as "all Liberty ships are inherently notable". I would caution that it may apply to Victory ships, but I don't know if they have been as extensively documented and written about as have Liberty ships. — Bellhalla (talk) 12:28, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I would think it applies even more to Victory ships, since they were much more modern vessels. Gatoclass (talk) 17:55, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Additional proposals for consideration

• Definitions

Sailing ship - a ship powered primarily by sails. Fitment of an engine shall not disqualify such a vessel from being a sailing ship. Ships powered primarily by human muscle power, e.g. a trireme, shall broadly be considered as sailing ships.

Motorship - a ship propelled mechanichally by steam, electricity, diesel or nuclear power (list is not exhaustive).

Current - a ship currently in Naval or Merchant service, or laid up pending rebuild, refit, repairs, scrapping or change of route.

Historic - a ship that has been scrapped or shipwrecked, or preserved as a museum or museum exhibit. Any vessel launched over 100 years ago (count years only). Any vessel included in a national register of historic ships or equivalent registers of cultural heritage.

Ocean going - any vessel that sails in International Waters, including coastal trading vessels

Non ocean going - Any vessel that sails inland waters, such as the Great Lakes, English Lakes, Scottish Lochs, River Rhine, Mississippi etc. Small pleasure craft and riverboats are generally inherently non-notable.

• Minimum tonnage to assure inherent notability

ocean going

Current motorship:- 1,000 tons.

Historic motorship:- 500 tons.

Current and historic sailing ship:- 100 tons

non-ocean going

Current motorship:- 500 tons

Historic motorship:- 250 tons

Current and historic sailing ship: 50 tons

Note

Vessels under these limits may be notable in some circumstances. e.g. one of a few survivors of a once numerous class of ships/boats, such as the eight surviving Norfolk Wherries from a class that numbered in the hundreds.

Mjroots (talk) 16:59, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your efforts at codifying and defining, mjroots, but I think your threshold is extremely too low. Just to pick an example at random, take a look at the historic (under your definition) 627-ton 1904 cargo ship Golly (pdf file). Via your suggestions, she would be inherently notable and, thus, worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. We can then write an article that describes when and where and for whom she was built. We can describe her previous names of Star, Velaug, and Kate. We can give her official numbers and her radio call sign. We can describe her compound engines and give her measurements, with all of this available information cited to reliable sources. But even if all of that is written, it still begs this question: what about this ship is important or special enough for it to automatically qualify for inclusion in a general interest encyclopedia? — Bellhalla (talk) 17:44, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

As it says in the title of the section - for consideration. I'm not saying these figures are right (or wrong). They are open to discussion and being challenged if they are too high or low, as I would hope that other figures posted further up the page are. Let's bang some figures about, talk about them, propose new figures, discuss those and eventually reach a consensus. The most important part of my proposal is to distinguish between ocean going vessels and those operated on inland waterways, which has not been mentioned before now. Mjroots (talk) 17:50, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I think some of this would fit nicely under the inherent non-notability guidance section! The definitions are useful; I put the sailing ship one in a footnote. Viv Hamilton (talk) 11:01, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Inherent Non-notability

One school of thought is that instead of setting down notability criteria, the question should be approached from the opposite angle - establish a set of non-notability criteria.

The following ships/boats will generally be considered non-notable. They may be notable because of events/piracy etc as proposed at User:Viv_Hamilton/Ship_notability#Notability_through_events

• A ship that has not been issued with an IMO number, or Official Number.
• A ship that has not been entered on a shipping register such as Lloyd's, DNV, etc.
• Pleasure craft used solely on inland waterways and canals (exception:- pleasure craft used on large open bodies of inland water such as the Great Lakes, English Lake District Lakes, Scottish Lochs, Rhine, Mississippi, Nile or similar large rivers may be considered notable). Surviving members of once large classes of boat such as the Norfolk wherry may be considered notable).
• Sea going pleasure craft under (to be determined) tons. (exception: the Little Ships that participated in the Dunkirk evacuation may be considered notable). Mjroots (talk) 18:35, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

What countries used an official number system? I personally know of the UK, the US, and Italy, but did other countries use them? Also, as I understand it, IMO numbers have only been in existence since the 1960s(? please correct me if I'm wrong…) So, if, for example, France did not use an official number system, its pre-1960s ships would be excluded?

Also, the presence or absence of register entry should not, in my opinion, be an end-all-be-all. For example, the 1936 barge Stracraft (pdf file) has both an official number and a register entry, but I don't think many would argue barges are necessarily notable.

Let me say that I appreciate the efforts of all involved, but I believe the farther this goes, and the more overly specific the proposals seem to get, the closer it gets to absurdity. The more arbitrary and artificial the guidelines get, the more it introduces a particular POV of what is or isn't notable. Why don't we back off from trying to impose an arbitrary standard and let the consensus, site-wide Wikipedia notability guidelines apply? They seem to have worked out pretty well so far… — Bellhalla (talk) 19:12, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I think this could be a useful additional section, again written as guidance. Essentially, it guides editors that unless they know of a significant event in the vessels history, don't bother to create an article (although it could be included in a list or more broadly based article. Viv Hamilton (talk) 10:57, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Search the AFD archives for ship precedents?

Is there a way to search the AFD archives for ship precedents (e.g. using a bot of some sort)? We could then report solid data to support our guidelines. Viv Hamilton (talk) 11:11, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

No specific guidelines

If we decide that we are not going to set specific guidelines (in a similar way to how WP:AIRCRASH has set them), maybe all we need to do is have a simple statement on the WP:SHIPS Project page.

Notability of ships.

A ship shall be considered notable if it can be demonstrated to meet WP:V via WP:RS.

Reworded A ship shall be considered notable if it can be demonstrated to meet WP:N via WP:V and WP:RS.

(Discuss) Mjroots (talk) 09:23, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

The barge Starcraft (from my example above) can be demonstrated to meet WP:V via WP:RS, but it still says nothing abut why the barge would be notable. I would propose that your sentence be amended to this:

A ship shall be considered notable if it can be demonstrated to meet WP:N

but since that's more of a "water is wet" type of statement, it seems silly to even adopt. — Bellhalla (talk) 12:10, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Starcraft is mentioned in one WP:RS, but all you'd get from that is enough info to start filling an infobox and not a lot else. It's unlikely that anyone would create an article that is an infobox and little else. I'd be voting Delete if such an article even made it as far as AfD. Mjroots (talk) 16:47, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

As would I, if it came up at AFD. My point is that your original proposal could be construed, even if it was not your intent, to mean that any ship that is verifiable via a reliable source (as Starcraft would be) would be notable. As you have demonstrated by your objection, that is not the case. — Bellhalla (talk) 17:36, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

(od) I've reworded the statement, taking into account Bellhalla's comments. Mjroots (talk) 17:51, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

That does sound a lot better, but how is that any different from what's at WP:N? — Bellhalla (talk) 18:09, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

It isn't really, is it? However, with that criteria, a small rivercraft could be deemed to be notable too. Hence the discussion above re sizes/weights etc. Mjroots (talk) 19:39, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Ship info box test

What about having a guideline that says that if all the information from the sources can be included in the infobox, the ship is unlikely to be notable i.e. if we just have basic facts, it could go in a list about the class of vessel? If it has has an interesting service history, there will be expanded discussion type material that doesn't go in an infobox. Viv Hamilton (talk) 10:24, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

That sounds like a solid indicator of notability to me. — Bellhalla (talk) 11:55, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Added ideas from the talk page to the guidelines

I've taken some of the ideas from the discussion and incorporated them into the guidelines. And I have generally checked thorugh to make sure it makes it clear that these are all guidelines of what is likely or unlikely to be notable. Please edit to improve Viv Hamilton (talk) 10:26, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I've clarified two points, and added a few wikilinks. Mjroots (talk) 18:23, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I moved the <ref> tags to after the punctuation, and made some other changes:

• Commissioned naval vessels have consistently been found to be notable at AFDs and that fact has been noted.
• I commented out the line about shipping companies as this guideline is supposed to be about ships, not companies or the maritime industry in general.
• I commented out the "acquired notability" for commissioned vessels. Because they are reliably notable, this is superfluous.
• I added examples of uncompleted and/or non-commissioned ships that have been found to be notable.
• Some other copyedits to reflect that this is supposed to be a description (and not a prescription) of notability.

—Bellhalla (talk) 17:51, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I still don't see the need for a guideline. However, if this thing is going ahead, I think a couple of sections in the "Vessels that are unlikely to be notable" should go. In particular, the one about uncommissioned ships and the one about inland waterways and canals. I can see these sections doing little more but creating headaches for people trying to write articles in future - on, say, riverboats.

Also, I think the threshold is far too high for 19th century steamships. I have a book here listing the steamships built by one notable company from 1838 to 1867 and at least half of them were 500 tons or less, but I would consider practically all these vessels to be notable for their historic significance alone. For example, the steamship Savannah (not the famous one that made the first atlantic crossing) was built for transatlantic service in 1838 - but she was only 338 tons! Ships were a lot smaller in the early 19th century, and the last thing I want if and when I start writing about some of these early steamers is to have someone putting them up for AFD and having people piling on "delete" because the ships are "well under 1,000 tons"! Gatoclass (talk) 05:05, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Gatoclass, historic vessels (over 100 years old) are assumed to be notable, so no worries there. By riverboats, it needs to be clarified that this is pleasurecraft and city tourist sightseeing boats (eg:Amsterdam canal cruises). Large passenger carrying boats such as those used on the Mississippi and Rhine may be notable ~ this hasn't been tested via AfD. Mjroots (talk) 14:12, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but what is the definition of "historic"? The table clearly puts the limit at 1000 tons for ships older than 1890, so all someone needs to do is argue that a ship is not "historic" - perhaps on the very ground that it is "less than 1,000 tons" - and you have an AFD. Gatoclass (talk) 19:30, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I guess you're right and we need to do some research on sizes of ships pre-1890. RMS Britannia built in 1840 was only just over 1,000 tonnes, and she was almost twice as long as Diamond (ship) (of which I don't know the tonnage) built in 1823 Viv Hamilton (talk) 20:11, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Historic as per definition posted above is over 100 years old. Maybe this needs clarifying in the proposed guidelines.

Is "historic" intended to apply only to 100-plus-year-old ships still in existence or does it apply to any ship built over 100 years ago, regardless of its present status? — Bellhalla (talk) 13:17, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Unlikely --> less likely

Would the proposed guidelines be better if the "unlikely" was changed to "less likely". The inference with the use of "unlikely" is that such article are likely to be AfD'd on sight, wheras "less likely" infers that such an article would probably be OK but will need more attention to provision of reliable sources and references to justify its existence. Mjroots (talk) 07:16, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Is that really such a problem? My thought would be that if you are writing an article for a vessel in the "unlikely" category, you must put in the lead paragraph why it is notable and back this up with reliable sources. An article which has done that will be saved from Afd Viv Hamilton (talk) 17:18, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

It's the same old problem, the Navy ships and passenger ships get all the publicity. The freighters have less coverage, but that doesn't mean that they are not worth writing about. It just makes sources a bit harder to find. A lot of these ships did nothing more remarkable than carry cargo around the world. At least the precedent has been established through the SS John Stagg AfD that notablility can be established for these ships provided sufficient references can be found. Mjroots (talk) 03:38, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

But the ones you're talking about would be above the weight criteria and registered, wouldn't they? Viv Hamilton (talk) 18:24, 25 January 2009 (UTC)