Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SS Corsea

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. Spartaz Humbug! 06:00, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SS Corsea[edit]

SS Corsea (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)

This is another ship article created by Jpfoynes (whose other ship articles are in Proposed deletion) (whose SS SNA 8 article is in Proposed deletion) whose only reference is an archive. This one's only major event is that it was attacked.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 06:00, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well, then... I've got some improvement work to do if this AFD result turns out to be Keep... Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). This message was left at 20:31, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As mentioned once above, this author's other ship articles were proposed for deletion by Brad101, and I couldn't find any sources with an initial Google search (maybe bad search terms?), but now the above users managed to find some. Yeah, you're right. This article is sorely in need of improvement, and that's why once I tagged it with {{Rewrite}}. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). This message was left at 20:26, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've given Jpfoynes some advice re writing better articles. As for the SS SNA 8 article, I'd let the prod expire. Deletion of a poorly written article that does not demonstate WP:GNG is met would not prevent an article being created a a later date which does meet GNG. Mjroots (talk) 07:49, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Article is not helpful as the same information exists in List_of_shipwrecks_in_November_1940#11_November. Unless the article can be expanded past basic information it should only remain listed in the origin article. Brad (talk) 23:13, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Brad101: - it has already been shown that the article can be expanded as the sources exist to do so. AfD is not for cleanup. Mjroots (talk) 11:47, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, I see the creator has made some comments on the talk page for this deletion Lyndaship (talk) 16:26, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Have read them. If Jpfoynes can correct information stated by adding new sources, he should be WP:BOLD and do so. Similarly for any errors I've made in translating from German language sources, as I'm only about de-1/2. Mjroots (talk) 10:51, 7 March 2018 (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.