Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NoCGV Ålesund

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Mkdwtalk 01:04, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NoCGV Ålesund[edit]

NoCGV Ålesund (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No sources indicating the vessels notability. Searches on Google and Google Books yielded no usable results. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 21:47, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (gab) @ 23:58, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The convention is that such vessels are considered notable. There is at least one publication covering this and sister ships of the Norwegian Coastguard and plenty of other evidence on Google backing up the information in the article, though the best sources may well be print ones. Note that this vessel is also designated KV "Alesund" in Norway. --AJHingston (talk) 00:01, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Which convention are you referring to? The convention that appears to be applicable here is WP:GNG, which requires significant coverage in reliable independent sources. I am not seeing any evidence of such coverage in the article. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 06:50, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the page to which you provided a link here, which says "As for any subject on Wikipedia, presumption of notability for a military unit or formation depends wholly on the existence of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." How is shipspotting.com a reliable source? The definition at http://www.shipspotting.com/about/terms.php says "Shipspotting.com is an online community for ship photos and related topics. The webpage contains more than 500 000 pictures of vessels and is the worlds largest in its kind. The photo section of Shipspotting provides an online gallery for ship photographers. The overall mission is to create a setting where ship photographers can gain maximum exposure for their work and to provide for a meeting place for ship enthusiasts from all over the world." How is that what Wikipedia considers a reliable source? -- Toshio Yamaguchi 20:10, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Uhm, what exactly is your reason for keeping the article here? -- Toshio Yamaguchi 20:20, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per RightCowLeftCoast's comment — KV Ålesund is a commissioned vessel of the Norwegian Coast Guard (and not even a small one). Tupsumato (talk) 19:54, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment According to this article in the Norwegian Wikipedia, Ålesund handles more missions per year than any other Norwegian Coast Guard or Navy ship. No source on that, though, but assuming we found one, it should make Ålesund notable enough for an article.
      Also, are we running out of space in Wikipedia or what? I admit I might be nudging WP:OSE, but I have to agree with Palmeira below regarding many existing ship articles, quite a large portion of which would fall under WP:MILL or similar. Even big ships rarely make it into the news unless they hit something... Tupsumato (talk) 23:05, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment reply The U.S. Army Engineer Port Repair ship is a case on point. There were few, with one exception they were of an orphan MC design that happened to be available for an Army requirement of somewhat mixed support with those largely getting modified too late to make it at the time of most need and are pretty much a dead end. I know them pretty well and could "do an article" on each with as much substance as many DANFS paragraph expansions long established here. There is no point in my opinion. The value is to have the context for anyone casually running across one of the weird things in historical texts. That is well served I think by keeping them together in that single article with perhaps a table of the individual ships showing dates and a brief "career" note. That would serve for many military vessels presumed to be notable enough for a stand along piece. Palmeira (talk) 00:19, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Coverage in 2007 edition of Combat Fleets of the World - here (p. 521). Should also be covered in appropriate issues of Jane,s Fighting Ships and similar. There is also likely to be significant coverage of this large fisheries patrol vessel in local Norwegian news sources.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:27, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
News-type coverage (in Norwegian) includes assisting storm hit villages, responding to the discovery of a naval mine, rescuing a cargo vessel after engine failure, arresting a British fishing boat suspected of illegal fishing, and rescuing more cargo ships. A reasonable amount of news coverage there.Nigel Ish (talk) 15:20, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep among other things the ship is one of the designated oil spill response vessels, Inventory of EU Member States Oil Pollution Response assets and Norwegian Defense Facts and Figures. By the deletion criterion proposed probably 80% of naval ship articles—and possibly some small not very newsworthy towns, cities, provinces and even countries—should be deleted. That said, I do think many of the vessels with "articles" such as this and not much future of expansion should probably be handled in an overall article on the service, type or such other convenient "bucket" that would allow not only the note they exist(ed) but allow for a "main article" if something develops. Palmeira (talk) 20:54, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Nigel Ish. If we want to re-debate the convention of notability of commissioned military vessels, don't believe this is the place for it.Buckshot06 (talk) 08:21, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Meets GNG. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:01, 7 June 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/NoCGV_Ålesund&oldid=1069001869"