Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Louisa (1798 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 keep. This does not preclude a possible merger, which if desired can be discussed on the article's talk page. Randykitty (talk) 14:17, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Louisa (1798 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)

Redirect to Louisa (ship) was reverted, and article creator prefers AfD discussion over simple redirection.

Lacks notability, sources are primary, databases, or passing mentions. The few lines in "History of the Liverpool Privateers" by Williams are the most substantial source we have, which isn't sufficient to support a stand-alone article. Behrendt has nothing about Louisa, and Inikori is a very passing mention. It's just one of the thousands of slave ships in the slave ship database. Fram (talk) 09:41, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Transportation, and England. Fram (talk) 09:41, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The refs offer WP:SIGCOV. Desertarun (talk) 16:16, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Care to elaborate? I made some effort to actually look at and discuss the sources individually. Fram (talk) 16:27, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm sorry, i see this as another in a series of AFDs that is appearing to be false or inappropriate in other ways. There's no actual intent to completely delete the article, is there? Rather the intent is to cause a merger, or at worst a redirect without moving over any material? Then this is not for AFD. And the deletion nominator has been schooled recently in other AFDs they opened or participated in about various lists of ships. "Article creator prefers AFD discussion over simple redirection" is not, i think, how Wikipedia is supposed to work. Talk page shows no discussion, no complaint or request about anything. wp:AFDISNOTFORCLEANUP. AFD is not for running roughshod. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 21:48, 10 February 2023 (UTC) The same applies at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Catherine (1793 ship), i suppose anyone considering this AFD should please consider that one also. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 21:54, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed redirects are supposed to be discussed at AfD. Before you try to school people about AfD, perhaps try to know such things. My intent is not to cause a merger, a redirect at most is more than sufficient and a straight deletion wouldn´t be a problem either. So please dtop the misplaced concerns about whether this should be at AfD, and perhaps answer the question about this specific AfD instead? Fram (talk) 06:55, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I do think this should not be at AFD. If normal processes were followed for a wp:MERGE and it was decided by editors that a merge was appropriate, there is no way the article would be merely redirected, dismissing all information and all sources in the article. This should not be at AFD. Maybe there are some kinds of "disputed redirects" which are appropriate for AFD, as when there is trolling or otherwise obviously no information at a given article.

This and some other ships-related AFDs are coming across to me as bullying-like, vaguely against ships or ships editors or I don't know what exactly. Or maybe in these AFDs the deletion nominator was not initially in that mode, but for some reason turns on participating editors. Bullying happens to be what I comment about most on my own userpage. This doesn't exactly perfectly fit with most standard definitions, but I am not comfortable with this going on in Wikipedia now. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 20:12, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I am not sure, but I think it is possible other AFD editors, including at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Catherine (1793 ship), are choosing not to !vote or comment here due to incivility going on. Who needs it. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 05:26, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That’s not a vote. That’s complaining about WP:OTHERSTUFF Dronebogus (talk) 22:59, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The mention of the profitability of the 4th voyage is significant in its impact. I have tried to clarify the importance, with a cite to a substantial secondary source. The exaggerated profitability of this and five voyages by other vessels was important in skewing understanding of the enslaving trade. In addition to adding this what I hope is a clarification, I have added other background. I realize although this background does not rise to the level of significant coverage of the vessel herself, it does provide further context to vessel and the trade, and is consistent with WP's policy favoring providing such information. Acad Ronin (talk) 01:14, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- What policy would that be? Which policy favours keeping non-notable subjects as a place to post more general information about a larger subject, instead of, you know, posting that info at a dedicated article about that larger subject? If some of this is necessary background to understand the slave trade, then it should be added to the article about the slave trade, or a sub-article about some specific topic, e.g. the profitability of the slave trade. Fram (talk) 09:04, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  There is nothing that prevents you from adding the info to articles on enslaving. In fact, please do. But doing so does not preclude adding the info here too. I don't know how someone comes to an article, abstract curiosity, seeking a specific answer, or..., and I don't know where they will go next. Adding background may not be necessary to understanding enslaving, but the purpose of an article is not just to answer the specific question, or at least that is what I believe, having perhaps spent too many years as an educator. Acad Ronin (talk) 11:32, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There seems to be coverage in Williams (1897), which is twice cited in the article. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 10:20, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 11:00, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The detail in this case is important to the broader understanding of the economics of the trade, as it was chosen by Williams due to its rarity as an exemplar. At present, with five completed voyages it presents also a more notable career than some of the others that have been considered recently. At the very least, the substantive material here should retained by an appropriate merge (I cannot agree with the OP that everything here is so worthless that nothing short of full deletion would be appropriate). When an article comes to be written on the economics of slave trading or shipping per se, probably as a spin-off from the already quite lengthy Atlantic slave trade, there may then be a more suitable target than causing too much imbalance in List of slave ships, even if that article is forked as suggested at WP: Articles for deletion/Catherine (1793 ship). Davidships (talk) 20:20, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Louisa (1798 ship) is a well-developed article on, as the title implies, a historical topic. The article relies both on primary and secondary sources. The brief description of all its six journeys sets a great standard (and high bar!) for other such articles. Wikipedia suffers from a major recentism problem -- many editors want to write about something that just happened or a contemporary person, company, product, service, etc they know something about -- and deleting this article would not improve this unfortunate situation. In recent decades, there has been an increased interest in the slave trade, for which this ship has been used. The sources from the 19th, 20th, and 21st centuries also speak to a sustained interest (for any reason) in the Louisa (1798 ship) and similar vessels. Thank you, Acad Ronin for creating, expanding, and referencing this article! gidonb (talk) 13:51, 15 February 2023 (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.