Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/German trawler V 206 Otto Bröhan

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. clear consensus to keep and no active discussion occurring in the last three days. (non-admin closure) MaxnaCarter (talk) 02:07, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

German trawler V 206 Otto Bröhan[edit]

[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 of any notability, just a name among many in some lists, and a standard entry in Lloyd's which doesn't indicate any notability. No actual reliable, indepth sources about this ship apparently. Perhaps there is a good redirect target? Fram (talk) 12:02, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Transportation, and Germany. Fram (talk) 12:02, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep First and foremost, all three sources meet WP:RS. Major warships of navies are generally well covered on Wikipedia. The auxiliary ships less so. This is one of a series of articles on WWII Vorpostenboote. There is enough material on most of them to create an article of at least start class. On the odd occasion where there isn't, then the ship doesn't get an article (see the enry for V 203 Heinrich Buermann). There may well be offline, or foreign language sources, with which to expand the article, as well as other online sources such as the Kriegsmarine war diaries which I recently added to WP:SHIPS/R#Kriegsmarine. Wikipedia is better for having the article than not having it. Mjroots (talk) 12:14, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- - Not saying "I told you so", but look how the article has been expanded. Mjroots (talk) 10:19, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- None of the three WP:RS are indepth though (which is required, I never argued that they weren't reliable), they are
  - [1] a two line entry in a ships database
  - [2] two very simple listings in a database
  - [3] an extremely passing mention
- "One of a series of articles": yes, and most of the others seem to have the exact same sources with the exact same issues. Your hope that better sources exist is not sufficient to keep an article which currently clearly fails WP:N. Fram (talk) 12:24, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - OK, Fram, we've both had our say. Shall we leave it to others to decide? Mjroots (talk) 12:30, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, you know the valid reasons to keep or delete (or redirect) an article, and instead you chose to start a strawman argument ("all three sources meet WP:RS", which wasn't disputed) and ignored the actual reason for deletion, that there aren't any reliable indepth sources. It's of course your right to stick to that position and not even try to show that this is a notable subject, but the closing admin is likely to simply ignore your "keep" then. Fram (talk) 12:39, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      - An you're the one that linked "No actual reliable, indepth sources about this ship apparently" to WP:RS and claimed that you never said the sources weren't reliable. I'm outta here. Mjroots (talk) 12:56, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        That's why I said "reliable, indepth", not just "reliable". WP:GNG require significant coverage from reliable sources, but you have only provided trivial coverage from reliable sources. You know, the start of my deletion nomination, "No evidence of any notability"... Fram (talk) 13:12, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BASIC. Mztourist (talk) 13:06, 24 May 2022 (UTC)Weak Keep change due to RS added by Nigel Ish and identified by Sturmvogel 66. Mztourist (talk) 05:10, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've found another source and expanded the article. Fram I invite you to withdraw this nomination. Mztourist, please look at the expanded article and consider whether or not you wish to change your !vote. Mjroots (talk) 16:09, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I should withdraw this nom because you found some forum[4]? Oh, and some personal website[5]? Again, you need reliable, indepth sources, not on the one hand some reliable sources without significant coverage and on the ther hand a few more indepth sources which aren't reliable. Fram (talk) 16:36, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Just a comment in passing: the site is run by a Klaus Intemann, who doesn't appear to have published anything that would establish him as an expert in the field per WP:SPS (assuming this individual is the same Klaus Intemann appearing in Worldcat). As far as I can tell, it's just a hobbyist site. Parsecboy (talk) 18:28, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - Mjroots not with the sources you have given, however the sources provided by Nigel Ish may tip my view. Mztourist (talk) 06:26, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lloyd's Register is quite a reliable source. The Banner talk 16:51, 24 May 2022 (UTC) P.S.: Personal attacks and/or sour remarks do not make arguments stronger. Contrary... [reply]
- Which isn't disputed. But how does that entry actually give any notability? It's just an entry in a register, some basic facts, not a n actual secondary source with indepth information about the ship. Lloyd's lists 1000s upon 1000s of ships in this shorthand manner. Fram (talk) 17:14, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Why do you try to shoot down one of the most essential, secondary, reliable sources? And to answer your snipe in the summary: yes. I checked in fact all the given sources. The Banner talk 17:41, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - Because it is just a very short database entry amongst thousands of similar entries? It is a register of ships, for insurance purposes, of "all seagoing, self-propelled merchant ships of 100 gross tons or greater" (from our article). The current edition for all currently active ships runs to 5 big volumes. This is not a selective book, this is just a database. This doesn't mean it isn't reliable, but that it doesn't give any notability whatsoever to ships included in it. Simply existing is sufficient. Fram (talk) 17:52, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - While I can't find the exact number of entries in Lloyds for the moment, the current merchant fleet alone, worldwide, is around 92,000 ships[6]. Fram (talk) 17:55, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I've added a little more on her loss (in particular where she was scuttled) from a new RS and the date of her loss from Rohwer (also reliable). Paterson states that the ship is sometimes to have clashed with British paratroopers on D-Day but that this appears to be incorrect. I have also backed up some of the details for the ship in French Service from Jane's Fighting Ships.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:56, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Long consensus has been to keep all commissioned military vessels. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:31, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Not this again... Consensus is that article subjects need to be notable, not that some groups have magical notability. A country nationalizing fishing ships and turning them into cannon fodder doesn't miraculously make that ship notable. Fram (talk) 10:01, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Consensus is clear and has always been clear. WP:IDONTLIKEIT does not make it untrue. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:22, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - Then please link to the accepted guideline or policy that actually shows this consensus? Or do you still mean the essay Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Notability guide? As that has no consensus, no matter what you claim. Fram (talk) 10:59, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      - Please point me to an AfD discussion where a commissioned military vessel (one that moves!) has been deleted. Consensus does not have to be written down to be consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:05, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        You tried the same claims at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/USS LSM-316 (redirected), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/USS LSM-479 (redirected), and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/USS LSM-422 (redirected, with a clear explanation of why your claim is not a valid keep argument). Like I said in my opening statement, if there is a good redirect target, I have no issue with this being redirected of course. Fram (talk) 11:09, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        None of which were actually deleted, were they! But in any case, this clearly meets WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:11, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        The articles are in fact removed, Necrothesp. And no subject is automatically notable. On the other hand: the article can stand its ground on its own merits. The Banner talk 11:19, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        They were redirected because there was a decent redirection target. There isn't here. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:04, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        Your point being...? We don't keep articles because there isn't a good redirect target: redirecting is an alternative for deletion. Fram (talk) 12:42, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        
        And actually, it could be redirected to List of Vorpostenboote in World War II of course. Fram (talk) 12:44, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        There's WP:SHIPS/AFD for the historic record. Mjroots (talk) 13:16, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        Thanks. Far from complete though, e.g. the three I gave above are not included (as are others). Fram (talk) 13:19, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While the ship did have an uneventful wartime career, she is covered in some detail in Roche and Gröner, our two of our basic sources for French and German warships. But I'll let Mjroots add their info himself.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:17, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Info from Gröner added. Mjroots (talk) 06:32, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I can't say that the nomination was wrong but discovery of new sources[7] would justify keeping the page. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 14:17, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Sources are good, so I see no reason for deletion.108.45.170.249 (talk) 21:59, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It adds to our understanding of WWII, and more generally in how vessels move between roles, especially in the transition between war and peace, and gets away from a "Boy's Own" focus on the big vessels. Acad Ronin (talk) 02:23, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the basis that it meets WP:GNG, not made up criteria like "all commissioned ships are notable" or "it adds to our understanding". -Indy beetle (talk) 09:33, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And "Notability" is not a "Made-up criterion"? Acad Ronin (talk) 11:56, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

>Insert eye roll< Ok, replace "made up criteria" with "personal opinions lacking in wider consensus that account for much" -Indy beetle (talk) 19:52, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources have established notability under the WP:GNG. Spokoyni (talk) 12:26, 28 May 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.