Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boka Star

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. Sandstein 14:16, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Boka Star[edit]

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

This article was created by user who had similar content removed from M-87 Orkan page. He created this article for personal purposes and it contains false information. After creation he linked this article with M-87 Orkan page were same content was deleted after Talk. Loesorion (talk) 02:09, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

precisely what information is false, and how do you know that? DGG ( talk ) 18:36, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Information in content of this article is false and it is discussed on M-87 Orkan talk page. There is a police report about content of ship and court judgement(since 2014 Marko Balic pending second retrial with only customs charges no weapons proliferation charges). Not a single word about Orkan M-87 in any official document - see link to police report in Talk:M-87_Orkan page. Such information was never established except in newspapers(in same time as false WMD was established in Iraq) and ship final destination mentioned in papers - Iraq - was never established by police or court. Everything about Orkan M-87 and Iraq was is invented by yellow press witch is used for references in article. User who created this article new about discussion in Talk page Talk:M-87_Orkan for deletion of part of M-87 Orkan article about Boka Star because it was content that he added. When discussion started in 22 june 2013 to remove false content in article because he knew that it is false claim and is going to be erased, as I have seen now he created article Boka Star on 24 june 2013 and later on 23 may 2015 again added link to article in M-87 Orkan page. Article has nothing significant to exist in Wikipedia except if we are going to read about trials in court and one ship involved in it and if it is such a case millions of trials could be made as articles in Wikipedia without any significant emphasis. Loesorion (talk) 23:12, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I read the talk page: So this is kind of WP:POVFORK written from unreliable sources? The editor who wrote this article has made multiple problematic edits (such as blanking a page without an explanation and replacing it with a redirect - see the edit history of Commodity (Marxism)), so I find it quite hard to believe he wrote this in good faith. It is best to delete this page. Ceosad (talk) 05:40, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:25, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:25, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Not sure if the ship has any notability outside of the event so I posted a pointer in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships. - Location (talk) 19:10, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The ship existed. There are plenty of references to the fact that she was involved in arms running in 2002, operating as Star. If there are problems with the article such as misleading information, they can be addressed. Mjroots (talk) 07:48, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The ship seems unremarkable, and the issue of arms smuggling should be covered directly in an appropriate article. Nick-D (talk) 08:09, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As it stands, the article appears to be a POVFORK, being about the incident, not the ship. However, it should be possible to find enough about the ship to make a viable article on the ship, not just this incident. [1] suggests the ship is ex-Yugoslav navy - do we have a name for it then?Nigel Ish (talk) 13:30, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have revised the article, giving a description of the ship, and I think that there is enough coverage now to Keep the article.Nigel Ish (talk) 19:53, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:HEY. Ships get articles. Kudos to User:Nigel Ish for sourcing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:41, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:01, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Now a good articleLyndaship (talk) 20:48, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per the sources it appears the content is true and its smuggling history was covered well.--Oakshade (talk) 02:05, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Yugoslavia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:41, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. All military vessels are generally considered to be notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:57, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:57, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All of sudden on 22. November started activities to add more content to article, very oblivious approach by author and his colleges in order to keep it, but can all of you that added content explain what type of fuel SCUD is using? And such article that is directly misguiding readers is not worth to keep. Loesorion (talk) 14:27, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Loesorion: Please do not accuse editors acting on their own initiative of collaborating with the original creator of the article. One outcome of nominating an article for deletion is that it gets improved and kept, once it is known that the article is at risk of deletion. This seems to have happened here, regardless of the motives behind the creation of the article in the first place. This is not a personal battle between you and the creator of the article. If it gets kept it will be because the original concerns have been addressed. That doesn't mean the the original creator has "won" or that you have "lost". Mjroots (talk) 15:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG. Kudos to those members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships who have built another encyclopedic article. - Location (talk) 16:43, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know that author so there is nothing personal in trying to delete article that contains false information and there was a reason for deletion and a sudden change of article in day that should be deleted with nobody saying anything prior that and still is kept portion of article with false information's that was reason for deletion is something that made me feel awkward. Sorry if I offended anyone by mentioning something that sound like accusation but I just wrote that without explicitly thinking on anyone but on content that was still there. It was not my attention to accuse but if you find numerous time same wrong info and every attempt to delete it is not successful despite previous discussion about it is time to think about conspiracies - joking of course - I don't mind article to be improved but improving everything else and living reason for deletion is strange don't you think? Loesorion (talk) 21:39, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree to keep this article after serious edits and improvements of its content so this discussion should be closed Loesorion (talk) 22:22, 24 November 2015 (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.