Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greyhound (1791 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:51, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Greyhound (1791 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)

No evidence found of any notability, just databases, primary sources, and passing mentions. Fram (talk) 13:41, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Transportation, and United Kingdom. Fram (talk) 13:41, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, or at least Redirect to Whaling in the United Kingdom as this was a real, documented ship associated with the Southern whale fishery. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk)

Why would we redirect hundreds of ships to a general article? A redirect should normally be a synonym of the target or a subaspect which is actually mentioned in the target, not every random example of the target. Fram (talk) 14:43, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The ship is recorded making voyages to the Southern whale fishery, so it is a plausible search term. See Whaling in the United Kingdom#The southern whale fishery. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 16:17, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And then you would redirect it to an article which has nothing to say about it. Fram (talk) 16:20, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not specifically, but the section on the Southern whale fishery could be expanded massively. We could also end up with a "List of British whaling ships" article, which we could then re-redirect this too. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 16:22, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a database, and this fails GNG. It should not be redirected to the general article when it's not mentioned at the target. Something being real doesn't inherently make it worthy of an encyclopedia article. The street I live on is real and documented, but that doesn't make it worthy of a Wikipedia article. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:03, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- I do not think we should have an article on every one of the 100,000 ships that must have appeared in Lloyds List. To have a WP article they need to be notable. Nothing in this article demonstrates that. Clearly NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:45, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep First, Greyhound appeared in three serious secondary sources (two books about whaling ships and their owners, and international database of whaling voyages). There is no fear that all vessels in Lloyd's Register will be the subject of articles. There are few shipping businesses from that era that have books devoted to them. Second, she made only one voyage. Of the 935 or so vessels in the British Southern Whale Fishery, 385 made only one voyage. This is a "curious incident of the dog in the night". Some vessels were lost while whaling, but also it signals that entrepreneurial owners tried this trade, and discovered that it was not profitable enough, at least for them. I will add a line to the article to make the point explicitly. Third, some one from the WP:Ships Project saw the article and rated it "Start" class, rather that immediately suggesting its deletion. The project currently lists 14,622 "C" class articles, 12,408 "Start" class articles, and 8,492 "Stub" class articles.Acad Ronin (talk) 23:45, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ratings have precisely zilch to do with notability. Greyhound appeared in three serious secondary sources (two books about whaling ships and their owners, and international database of whaling voyages). that's irrelevant unless this is significant coverage. You don't seem to have any understanding of Wikipedia's notability guidelines, and what you've said right here is largely WP:SYNTH and original research. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:57, 25 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.