- 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. ( non-admin closure) czar ♔ 04:54, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
MV Bni Nsar
- MV Bni Nsar ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Seemingly un-notable boat. Benboy00 ( talk) 16:02, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp ( talk) 16:08, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp ( talk) 16:08, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp ( talk) 16:08, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Morocco-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp ( talk) 16:08, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
- Snow keep - for a start, it's not a "boat", but an 76,000 GT ship. Ships of this size are generally able to meet WP:GNG, with sources easily found. One questions whether or not the instructions were followed before nominating this article, which needs improvement, not deletion. Mjroots ( talk) 10:44, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Comment Suggesting a snow keep when no-one else has voted, and when you yourself havent yet looked for any sources, seems kindof silly. One questions whether or not the instructions for WP:SNOW were followed before nominating this article. Benboy00 ( talk) 13:24, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
- It's not my job to look, it's yours as nominator. For info, see
WP:SHIPS/AFD for previous ship-related AFDs.
Mjroots (
talk) 17:20, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
- It is your job, however, to have some sort of idea what you're talking about when you vote. There may very well be hundreds of sources, and this ship may be world famous. Just saying "these sorts of things are generally notable" without having any idea if this one is notable or not and then using this as the basis for a snow close is, like i said, silly. Also like i said, voting snowball before any other votes is very silly. When you looked at that page you linked, did you see the snowball closes? When you clicked on them, were any of them one vote long?
Benboy00 (
talk) 17:53, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
- Comment While I try to avoid throwing snowballs, I have to admit that we do have a pretty good track record at
WP:SHIPS when it comes to articles of large ships being nominated for deletion because someone saw them as "seemingly un-notable"...
Tupsumato (
talk) 18:09, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
- Thats fine, but throwing a snowball (before any other votes are cast) and then accusing the nom (me) of not looking for sources seems like a step to far. As it happens I did check for sources, and all I found were things like shipping registers and ship trackers, which dont seem to help with notability.
Benboy00 (
talk) 18:18, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
- Agreed. I checked the career summary from Fakta om Fartyg (which I do not consider to be a reliable source in itself), but didn't look for news articles of the incidents.
Tupsumato (
talk) 18:38, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
- Benboy, I do know what I'm on about. I've written more ship articles and lists than I care to count. As you've got the IMO Number now, why not do another search using the vessel's name/former names and the IMO Number. That should prove to you that this ship is capable of sustaining an article. Mjroots ( talk) 21:01, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
- Agreed. I checked the career summary from Fakta om Fartyg (which I do not consider to be a reliable source in itself), but didn't look for news articles of the incidents.
Tupsumato (
talk) 18:38, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
- Thats fine, but throwing a snowball (before any other votes are cast) and then accusing the nom (me) of not looking for sources seems like a step to far. As it happens I did check for sources, and all I found were things like shipping registers and ship trackers, which dont seem to help with notability.
Benboy00 (
talk) 18:18, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
- Comment While I try to avoid throwing snowballs, I have to admit that we do have a pretty good track record at
WP:SHIPS when it comes to articles of large ships being nominated for deletion because someone saw them as "seemingly un-notable"...
Tupsumato (
talk) 18:09, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
- It is your job, however, to have some sort of idea what you're talking about when you vote. There may very well be hundreds of sources, and this ship may be world famous. Just saying "these sorts of things are generally notable" without having any idea if this one is notable or not and then using this as the basis for a snow close is, like i said, silly. Also like i said, voting snowball before any other votes is very silly. When you looked at that page you linked, did you see the snowball closes? When you clicked on them, were any of them one vote long?
Benboy00 (
talk) 17:53, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
- Keep The vessel in question (IMO 7236335) seems to have a long and colorful career with at least two fires (engine room in 2006, smoke stack in 2010). The article needs a lot of improving, though. Tupsumato ( talk) 17:31, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
- Comment very few google hits, and no google news articles. Am I doing something wrong with my searches? GraemeLeggett ( talk) 19:11, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
-
Fakta om Fartyg,
The Ferry Site,
Matteo Fasce's webpage on the ship,
Marine Marchande. Also article on the ship on fr: and it: Wikis.
Mjroots (
talk) 00:15, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
- You can also find an entry from Equasis. However, these sources are problematic because you can find such information from practically every ship, even the ones who definitely fail to meet the notability guidelines. I tried to look for news about the two fires, but came up nothing at least in English. A professional publication could have an article about the conversion, though, and some 70s magazines could have articles about the delivery of the ship. Tupsumato ( talk) 13:04, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
-
Fakta om Fartyg,
The Ferry Site,
Matteo Fasce's webpage on the ship,
Marine Marchande. Also article on the ship on fr: and it: Wikis.
Mjroots (
talk) 00:15, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch ( talk) 03:29, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
- Keep. "Seemingly non-notable" 76,000-ton ship? No, not really. Sufficient data found above to establish notability; WP:GHITS are irrelevant. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:35, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
- It's not a 76,000 GT ship. The actual gross tonnage is 14,015.
Tupsumato (
talk) 04:06, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
- Even at 14,000, the point stands. -
The Bushranger
One ping only 21:54, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- But there are many thousands of >10,000 GT ships. Does this mean we should have articles on all of them? I just dont get why being big makes something notable. Surely we should judge a ship by its coverage, and not by its mass (except where its notability is mainly due to its mass (i.e. tiny/huge)).
Benboy00 (
talk) 00:02, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
-
Wikipedia is not paper; why shouldn't we have articles on them?
WP:N is just a guideline.
WP:V is policy. Satisfying V should, for certain subjects, be more than enough. -
The Bushranger
One ping only 23:58, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
- V is certainly not "more than enough". Wikipedia should not be a mass of unnotable information, as stated in the link above. Indeed, it even says "As explained in the policy introduction, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia" which pretty much directly opposes your point. I would be happy to have a discussion about sources, but just saying "This thing is notable because it is big" does not really seem like a statement founded in policy. Benboy00 ( talk) 00:50, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
-
Wikipedia is not paper; why shouldn't we have articles on them?
WP:N is just a guideline.
WP:V is policy. Satisfying V should, for certain subjects, be more than enough. -
The Bushranger
One ping only 23:58, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
- But there are many thousands of >10,000 GT ships. Does this mean we should have articles on all of them? I just dont get why being big makes something notable. Surely we should judge a ship by its coverage, and not by its mass (except where its notability is mainly due to its mass (i.e. tiny/huge)).
Benboy00 (
talk) 00:02, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
- Even at 14,000, the point stands. -
The Bushranger
One ping only 21:54, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- It's not a 76,000 GT ship. The actual gross tonnage is 14,015.
Tupsumato (
talk) 04:06, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
- Keep per WP:GNG and sources already identified... also additional ref at midilibre.fr. -- Trevj ( talk · contribs) 14:26, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
- Keep This ferry has been around a long time under a number of names. As Mjroots indicates such ships are notable because people are interested in them. Sources may be thin now, but there will be more which are not on line. As with many subjects in Wikipedia, these articles are not for everyone but nothing is served by deleting things that we do not ourselves care about. -- AJHingston ( talk) 11:00, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
- Keep a ship with an interesting (and notable) career. — Diiscool ( talk) 14:08, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
- Keep For reasons noted above, though one might say an infamous later "career" with a number of publicized violations. Palmeira ( talk) 14:35, 13 December 2013 (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.
- 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. ( non-admin closure) czar ♔ 04:54, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
MV Bni Nsar
- MV Bni Nsar ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Seemingly un-notable boat. Benboy00 ( talk) 16:02, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp ( talk) 16:08, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp ( talk) 16:08, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp ( talk) 16:08, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Morocco-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp ( talk) 16:08, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
- Snow keep - for a start, it's not a "boat", but an 76,000 GT ship. Ships of this size are generally able to meet WP:GNG, with sources easily found. One questions whether or not the instructions were followed before nominating this article, which needs improvement, not deletion. Mjroots ( talk) 10:44, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Comment Suggesting a snow keep when no-one else has voted, and when you yourself havent yet looked for any sources, seems kindof silly. One questions whether or not the instructions for WP:SNOW were followed before nominating this article. Benboy00 ( talk) 13:24, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
- It's not my job to look, it's yours as nominator. For info, see
WP:SHIPS/AFD for previous ship-related AFDs.
Mjroots (
talk) 17:20, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
- It is your job, however, to have some sort of idea what you're talking about when you vote. There may very well be hundreds of sources, and this ship may be world famous. Just saying "these sorts of things are generally notable" without having any idea if this one is notable or not and then using this as the basis for a snow close is, like i said, silly. Also like i said, voting snowball before any other votes is very silly. When you looked at that page you linked, did you see the snowball closes? When you clicked on them, were any of them one vote long?
Benboy00 (
talk) 17:53, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
- Comment While I try to avoid throwing snowballs, I have to admit that we do have a pretty good track record at
WP:SHIPS when it comes to articles of large ships being nominated for deletion because someone saw them as "seemingly un-notable"...
Tupsumato (
talk) 18:09, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
- Thats fine, but throwing a snowball (before any other votes are cast) and then accusing the nom (me) of not looking for sources seems like a step to far. As it happens I did check for sources, and all I found were things like shipping registers and ship trackers, which dont seem to help with notability.
Benboy00 (
talk) 18:18, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
- Agreed. I checked the career summary from Fakta om Fartyg (which I do not consider to be a reliable source in itself), but didn't look for news articles of the incidents.
Tupsumato (
talk) 18:38, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
- Benboy, I do know what I'm on about. I've written more ship articles and lists than I care to count. As you've got the IMO Number now, why not do another search using the vessel's name/former names and the IMO Number. That should prove to you that this ship is capable of sustaining an article. Mjroots ( talk) 21:01, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
- Agreed. I checked the career summary from Fakta om Fartyg (which I do not consider to be a reliable source in itself), but didn't look for news articles of the incidents.
Tupsumato (
talk) 18:38, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
- Thats fine, but throwing a snowball (before any other votes are cast) and then accusing the nom (me) of not looking for sources seems like a step to far. As it happens I did check for sources, and all I found were things like shipping registers and ship trackers, which dont seem to help with notability.
Benboy00 (
talk) 18:18, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
- Comment While I try to avoid throwing snowballs, I have to admit that we do have a pretty good track record at
WP:SHIPS when it comes to articles of large ships being nominated for deletion because someone saw them as "seemingly un-notable"...
Tupsumato (
talk) 18:09, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
- It is your job, however, to have some sort of idea what you're talking about when you vote. There may very well be hundreds of sources, and this ship may be world famous. Just saying "these sorts of things are generally notable" without having any idea if this one is notable or not and then using this as the basis for a snow close is, like i said, silly. Also like i said, voting snowball before any other votes is very silly. When you looked at that page you linked, did you see the snowball closes? When you clicked on them, were any of them one vote long?
Benboy00 (
talk) 17:53, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
- Keep The vessel in question (IMO 7236335) seems to have a long and colorful career with at least two fires (engine room in 2006, smoke stack in 2010). The article needs a lot of improving, though. Tupsumato ( talk) 17:31, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
- Comment very few google hits, and no google news articles. Am I doing something wrong with my searches? GraemeLeggett ( talk) 19:11, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
-
Fakta om Fartyg,
The Ferry Site,
Matteo Fasce's webpage on the ship,
Marine Marchande. Also article on the ship on fr: and it: Wikis.
Mjroots (
talk) 00:15, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
- You can also find an entry from Equasis. However, these sources are problematic because you can find such information from practically every ship, even the ones who definitely fail to meet the notability guidelines. I tried to look for news about the two fires, but came up nothing at least in English. A professional publication could have an article about the conversion, though, and some 70s magazines could have articles about the delivery of the ship. Tupsumato ( talk) 13:04, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
-
Fakta om Fartyg,
The Ferry Site,
Matteo Fasce's webpage on the ship,
Marine Marchande. Also article on the ship on fr: and it: Wikis.
Mjroots (
talk) 00:15, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch ( talk) 03:29, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
- Keep. "Seemingly non-notable" 76,000-ton ship? No, not really. Sufficient data found above to establish notability; WP:GHITS are irrelevant. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:35, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
- It's not a 76,000 GT ship. The actual gross tonnage is 14,015.
Tupsumato (
talk) 04:06, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
- Even at 14,000, the point stands. -
The Bushranger
One ping only 21:54, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- But there are many thousands of >10,000 GT ships. Does this mean we should have articles on all of them? I just dont get why being big makes something notable. Surely we should judge a ship by its coverage, and not by its mass (except where its notability is mainly due to its mass (i.e. tiny/huge)).
Benboy00 (
talk) 00:02, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
-
Wikipedia is not paper; why shouldn't we have articles on them?
WP:N is just a guideline.
WP:V is policy. Satisfying V should, for certain subjects, be more than enough. -
The Bushranger
One ping only 23:58, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
- V is certainly not "more than enough". Wikipedia should not be a mass of unnotable information, as stated in the link above. Indeed, it even says "As explained in the policy introduction, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia" which pretty much directly opposes your point. I would be happy to have a discussion about sources, but just saying "This thing is notable because it is big" does not really seem like a statement founded in policy. Benboy00 ( talk) 00:50, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
-
Wikipedia is not paper; why shouldn't we have articles on them?
WP:N is just a guideline.
WP:V is policy. Satisfying V should, for certain subjects, be more than enough. -
The Bushranger
One ping only 23:58, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
- But there are many thousands of >10,000 GT ships. Does this mean we should have articles on all of them? I just dont get why being big makes something notable. Surely we should judge a ship by its coverage, and not by its mass (except where its notability is mainly due to its mass (i.e. tiny/huge)).
Benboy00 (
talk) 00:02, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
- Even at 14,000, the point stands. -
The Bushranger
One ping only 21:54, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- It's not a 76,000 GT ship. The actual gross tonnage is 14,015.
Tupsumato (
talk) 04:06, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
- Keep per WP:GNG and sources already identified... also additional ref at midilibre.fr. -- Trevj ( talk · contribs) 14:26, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
- Keep This ferry has been around a long time under a number of names. As Mjroots indicates such ships are notable because people are interested in them. Sources may be thin now, but there will be more which are not on line. As with many subjects in Wikipedia, these articles are not for everyone but nothing is served by deleting things that we do not ourselves care about. -- AJHingston ( talk) 11:00, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
- Keep a ship with an interesting (and notable) career. — Diiscool ( talk) 14:08, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
- Keep For reasons noted above, though one might say an infamous later "career" with a number of publicized violations. Palmeira ( talk) 14:35, 13 December 2013 (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.