Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John B. Caddell

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. Michig (talk) 21:19, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

John B. Caddell[edit]

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

Other than being wrecked by Hurricane Sandy, no evidence of notability for this vessel. Unlike the Bounty, the other ship Sandy sunk, this oil tanker has no significant history behind it. Searching the ship's name online only comes up with Sandy-related news articles, which basically means that if this ship did not get wrecked by the storm, no one would know or care about it and we would not have an article on it since it would just your every day oil tanker. This basically violates Wikipedia's policy of no inherited notability since the tanker has inherited its notability from Sandy The Legendary Ranger (talk) 14:10, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I think any ship which ended up on a street in Staten Island would be notable, whether this was caused by a notable hurricane or by some other cause (let your imagination run riot .... some crazy drunk at the helm?), so the notability is not inherited from the storm albeit caused by it. PamD 14:41, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: For cases like that, there would be legal ramifications and new policies to prevent further incidents (e.g. the drunk would be terminated, lawsuits against the ship's company would be a certainty, and there would be stricter drinking rules). Here, we we have a ship that got blown away from its storage area and landed on a deserted street. Not much else is going to happen here. 209.2.61.8 (talk) 15:12, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - seems to me that a footnote on the Hurricane Sandy page would be more appropriate, there is nothing notable about this boat - it is merely something that was damaged by the hurricane ---- _nonsense ferret 18:06, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It is a former commissioned vessel of the United States Navy, and, per long-standing practice, any commissioned vessel of a national militay service is notable. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:51, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've made the point in a few places below, bit of overkill, but - does this guideline cover vessel or warship, my understanding from looking at WP:MILUNIT was that it is the latter. ---- _nonsense ferret 19:57, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And see my response below my P.S. — MILUNIT should be used for analogous purposes only, as it mentions only two categories of ships: civilian, and warships/auxiliary warships. This appears to fit in neither category, but is more analogous to the latter. Cdtew (talk) 21:20, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to Hurricane Sandy: Agree with nom that inherited notability is not sufficient reason to keep per WP:NOTINHERIT. The one notable part of the article, the "Hurricane Sandy grounding" paragraph, is relatively short and well-sourced, so it could be merged to Hurricane Sandy along with a redirect to guide anyone using the ship's name as a search term. --Mike Agricola (talk) 21:48, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no inherited notability here. As a commissioned vessel of a national military force, its notability stands on its own. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:51, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 00:07, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 00:07, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 00:07, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not notable, per nonsenseferret. GregJackP Boomer! 04:11, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; a tanker cast upon a city street was much covered in local media at a time when much else was happening. Yes, like German submarine U-559 it only appears in Wikipedia because of its unusual death. Reason enough, says me. Hurricane Sandy is already too big. Jim.henderson (talk) 22:09, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: There is a major difference between the U-559 and this tanker. The U-559's sinking resulted in major changes in war policy and was the subject of numerous books, films, and awards. It is very unlikely the John B. Caddell will result in any long term effects in the shipping industry because it was empty when it was wrecked, did not cause any fatalities, and once removed and scrapped, no one will likely mention it again.
Comment at the time it was wrecked, it wasn't an oil tanker, it was a water tanker. And unlike most tankers, this one also served in the US Navy in WWII. Being a naval ship from WWII, people interested in this ship would include ship-interested, WWII-interested, Navy-interested people. So not just your average ship where only ship-interested people might care. -- 76.65.128.43 (talk) 23:26, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply: Just because the ship was in WWII does not necessarily make it notable. It had to have done something significant during the war (e.g. sink another ship, save soldiers' lives, etc.) for it to warrant an article. 209.2.61.8 (talk) 15:12, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply If that's the rule you want to use, then get busy, because the vast majority of military vessel articles on Wikipedia deserve an AfD nomination under that criteria. Cdtew (talk) 12:39, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The ship was a commissioned vessel of the United States Navy (YO-140) and is, therefore, established to be notable. The fact the ship grounded during Sandy only adds to is notability, but is not the sole source. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:45, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just out of curiousity, where is this established - is there a written guideline somewhere? I couldn't find any notability guidelines relating to boats from the WP:GNG ---- _nonsense ferret 23:00, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's been established through standard editing procedure; it hasn't been explicitly written down, I believe, as getting new guidelines set, even when supported by long-standing practice, is a pain and a half, and making it an essay leads to scorn. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:01, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vessel or Warship? ---- _nonsense ferret 19:54, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See my response below my P.S. Cdtew (talk) 21:20, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Ship both notable for being a commissioned ship and meeting WP:GNG. Newm30 (talk) 22:37, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Appears notable enough, especially given that it was a commissioned vessel. Article could certainly be expanded, but has enough sources (even if not all tertiary) that I'm comfortable with it staying. — Huntster (t @ c) 03:20, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per long established practice that commissioned naval vessels are almost certainly capable of sustaining a stand-alone article. Loss through Hurricane Sandy adds to that notability. WP:GNG is easily met here. Mjroots (talk) 07:42, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vessels or Warships - might make a difference here ---- _nonsense ferret 19:54, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See my response below my P.S. Cdtew (talk) 21:20, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on a review of other naval support vessel articles; it does indeed seem like so long as a ship article meets WP:VERIFY, then the fact it was a commissioned naval vessel automatically passes WP:GNG. If this were not the case, you'd have to nominate 90% of Category:Oilers of the United States Navy for deletion, although the category includes many well-written articles. Cdtew (talk) 12:29, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Also, while wiki doesn't h ave a Guideline specifically related to this, WP:MILHIST has a guideline, WP:MILUNIT that holds that "Warships, including submarines, commissioned in recognised naval forces" are presumed notable, and that "Civilian vessels serving as auxiliary warships are notable in the same way as commissioned warships. ". Cdtew (talk) 12:39, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The issue I can see with this, is that it doesn't seem to have been a warship, so really falls outside that guideline. Or am I reading it wrong? ---- _nonsense ferret 19:54, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply You're reading the guideline right, but what I said wasn't clear. What I mean is that Wikipedia doesn't have a guideline for this, but the MILHIST guideline can be used as a guide. Note that the guideline says a civilian "vessel's notability is derived from participation in a notable naval action or association with an otherwise notable military figure". In this case, this isn't a civilian vessel, but is a military vessel which most closely resembles an auxiliary warship. The difference between the John B. Caddell and the SS Ohio, for instance, is that the SS Ohio was at all times a civilian military vessel, although it was requisitioned for use by the military. The Ohio would not, had it not participated in a major military action, have been notable enough to meet GNG or MLUNIT. The Caddell, on the other hand, was a commissioned vessel of the United States Navy, which makes it a member of a much more exclusive club. There were hundreds, if not thousands more vessels that were requisitioned by the United States for temporary service during the war, but (as far as my knowledge goes -- someone correct me if I'm wrong), only a very limited number of vessels were commissioned for what was ostensibly permanent use. Cdtew (talk) 21:15, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Put another way: John B. Caddell received a hull number (YO-140), therefore it is a commissioned vessel of the Navy. Hull or pennant number assignment usually = commissioning and, therefore, notability as a commissioned vessel. That it was an auxiliary as opposed to a man-of-war doesn't affect that. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:29, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would totally understand that any warship whether commissioned or requisitioned would be automatically notable - the extension of this rule about automatic notability to every type of vessel, including fuel barges, of every navy, is a bit less obviously correct to me. Clearly the consensus here is that it should be, so is not productive for me as a non-expert to continue questioning it. ---- _nonsense ferret 00:44, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is that "warship" in this context is almost WP:JARGON - "warship" = "commissioned vessel" in common useage within the military/military history community, including auxiliaries etc. (Fuel barges, for the record since you mentioned them, usually aren't commissioned.

) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:03, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to update Warship to reflect this ;) ---- _nonsense ferret 01:21, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above is fine, but MILUNIT states that GNG needs to be met via V x RS, which in this case it is. Mjroots (talk) 05:11, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per arguments above; commissioned naval vessel. —Diiscool (talk) 15:41, 26 January 2013 (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.