Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Golfo Azzurro

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. clear evidence of due dfiligence by the delete side on teh sourcing and this has not been rebutted effectively Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:19, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Golfo Azzurro[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:N AussieLegend (talk) 02:38, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

it has sources, no original reasearch. i dont see why it shouldnt be included. theres numerous shorter articles. it needs to be improved, not deleted. Joesolo13 (talk) 02:48, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment and delete It has sources? It has a self published source that is not reliable and a violation of WP:SPS. Until secondary sources are found I don't see how this can be kept. And Google news is showing a press release. Nothing of value will be lost if this is deleted so if sources do come up in the future it can easily be recreated.Cptnono (talk) 02:51, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article should not be deleted. The ship has been involved in at least two international incidents and has been discussed in news reports on television as well as in many websites. Google is not the end-all know-all source. It takes time to search for sources and build an article about a ship and there is a wealth of data to be mined about this one even before the SSCS took over it's operations. UB65 (talk) 09:28, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then provide the sources! Blogs, press releases, and primary sources do not affirm notability. I originally did assume it was notable but keep on coming up short with sources. And editors continue to add inappropriate sources. So if it is notable you should be able to provide significant secondary coverage. I assume this will be possible sooner or later but not now.Cptnono (talk) 22:16, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ship articles have different notability requirements than events and people. This ship definitely qualifies for an article.UB65 (talk) 23:20, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is there something like a Wikipedia:Notability (ships) that is used to replace WP:GNG? If so, how does this article meet the requirements?Cptnono (talk) 23:35, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, Wikipedia:Notability (ships) does not exist but Wikipedia:Notability (vehicles), which has been cited in several ship AfDs quite clearly states, "It does not replace the WP:N requirement for significant coverage in secondary sources." --AussieLegend (talk) 23:49, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To improve ship-related content throughout Wikipedia, the project uses Assessment and Review processes. Here are guidelines. I have found independent sources and listed some. There are also many from blogs and youtube sources that I haven't used and many other independent sources that offer only scant or duplicate info. I have avoided copies of the press releases in the news media and will work on the article further but it has enough for notability now with the references and links it has now. The ship has a history I am trying to sort out before SSCS began using it. It was notable enough before to be in many of the ship-fan sites.

There is much curiosity about this ship as well. It is notable. Please help improve the article. UB65 (talk) 05:28, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment and review is used in every Wikiproject. It is in no way related to notability. The general notability guidelines that are applicable to all articles require that the topic has "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. As of yet, this article has not met the GNG requirement and you have not demonstrated how it has. --AussieLegend (talk) 07:32, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to answer Cptnono's questions since I was too vague. Assessment and Review processes, and the guidelines do help to determine notability. It is by using other people's opinions via assessment and review as well as the guidelines to help determine notability per general notability guidelines and any special circumstances specific to ships. I also thought that the article was being judged as if it were a biography instead of as a ship article. They are different and that is what I had been referring to.

I went over the article, removed sources like the blog and included independent sources and sources that address the subject directly in detail as well as secondary sources covering the subject. They appear to have editorial integrity. I have avoided mirrors and sites that just copied press releases since they were already cited. The ship was in one verified international incident of being boarded and escorted. It appears to have been in another regarding an acoustic system deployment which I am still searching for secondary, independent verifiable sources. This article is about a ship also, not just Sea Shepherd or any of the other foundations. It is about this ship and it's history. It was the first commercial North sea trawler to use a sumwing and the first in the Netherlands.

Keep This article is notable but if it is decided to delete it please send it to the article incubator or failing that please Userfy it to me as I will adopt it and continue to work on it. I would rather have the help available in the article incubator though.UB65 (talk) 09:14, 7 September 2010 (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.