Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MV Ramsey

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 Speedy Keep. Even the nominator now agrees that the ship meets WP:GNG. No need to drag this out for a week.Mjroots (talk) 18:06, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MV Ramsey[edit]

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

~~Run-of-the-mill cargo ship; no assertion of notability.~~ See discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ships#Notability_guideline_question Slashme (talk) 07:09, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:32, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; fails the notability guideline. It does appear in the clydebuilt ships database, but that doesn't make it notable. It is over 100 tons, but that doesn't make it notable either. bobrayner (talk) 09:54, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Changing to Keep; There's broader sourcing now and I think that's showing more notability. bobrayner (talk) 07:33, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm loathe to let this be deleted. The General Notability Guideline is just that - a guideline - and I don't think it can be applied as a brush to every topic. This is a ship which cost £150,000+ in an era when a new, three bedroom suburban house would cost £1000. It was a large construction project which took nearly year to complete, and the ship is still in use today. The Cavalry (Message me) 17:19, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The fact that the ship cost as much as 150 houses doesn't make it notable, unless that was unusually much or little for a ship of this type. The fact that it's still in use likewise doesn't make it notable, unless that's unusual or remarkable for a ship of this type. --Slashme (talk) 18:26, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. By that logic, most WW1 destroyers are not notable, because they weren't unusual in the context of WW1 destroyers. Nearly all WW1 destroyers were unremarkable. Ditto Perseverance IV: one of three remaining barges of a group of eleven, which did nothing except ply the same route for 40+ years. In short, I'm thinking of it not as a ship, but as an engineering project. A project which cost the equivalent of £20m+ in today's money, the result of which has lasted a significant portion of the century. She was the last vessel custom-built built to serve the smaller ports of an entire country - a search at Books is enough to show that. I'll happily travel to the British Library and pull up more sources if necessary, but I think this is more than sufficient. The Cavalry (Message me) 19:51, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Run-of-the-mill is an essay, and the interpretation that articles on ships fall under it is just that, an interpretation. There are plenty of sources out there which could be used to expand the article - a small selection being Isle of Man Shipping: The Twilight Years, Ian H. Collard; Coastal Shipping of the Isle of Man 1946 - Present Day, by Stan Basnett, Steam Packet 175: The Official Anniversary Book of the Isle of Man Steam Packet Company, by Miles Cowsill and John Hendy; Ferries of the Isle of Man 1945 - Present Day, by Stan Basnett, So Strong and So Fair: Story of the Side-Loading Car Ferries of the Isle of Man Steam Packet Company and Their People. by Richard Danielson; Ships of the Isle of Man Steam Packet Company, by Ken Hassell and Steven Dearden and Ferries of the Isle of Man: Past and Present, by Stan Basnett. These all attest to the widespread coverage of ships like these, and an enduring interest in them. Despite the GNG being invoked, no effort has been made to see whether the article passes it, statements like 'It does appear in the clydebuilt ships database, but that doesn't make it notable. It is over 100 tons, but that doesn't make it notable either.' are strawman arguments. Benea (talk) 17:38, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is this specific ship discussed in depth in any of these works? You say there is interest in "ships like these". That's an argument for an article on this class of ship. The question here is: how much interest is there in this specific ship? So far, the article doesn't assert notability. --Slashme (talk) 18:21, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This must be some new meaning of "strawman" of whch I were hitherto unaware; those points directly addressed fallacies raised on the WikiProject Ships page. If the wider range of sources had been added earlier, we could have avoided this fuss. bobrayner (talk) 07:37, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per GNG in light of Calvary's search and Benea's additions to the article. Haus^Talk 21:30, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (as nominator): Things have changed since I nominated the article: there is now a perfectly reasonable assertion of notability. --Slashme (talk) 05:42, 24 August 2011 (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.