Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SS Hopestar

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The result was withdrawn

SS Hopestar[edit]

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

About a ship that sunk. While the ship is notable, the article is an utter mess. It only contains quotes, badly formatted and hard to read. Prod was removed, but not by the creating editor, and should stay as is. The article should be userfied. Bgwhite (talk) 07:02, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. — Omni Flames (talk contribs) 08:56, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Bgwhite: - I agree that the article is a mess. However, AfD is not the way to go here. Articles in need of improvement should not be nominated at AfD because they need improvement, no matter how bad the state of the article. It would have been far better to flag the issue up at WT:Ships. Give me some time and I'll see what I can do. Mjroots (talk) 13:53, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mjroots It's common procedure to userfy or move to draft articles that are not ready. The creating editor opposed to do this and they and the prod remover were not going to improve the article. AfD is not just to delete articles. Merge and userfy are common outcomes. It seems nobody ready my opening comment of "The article should be userfied". I was not asking for a delete, but I guess people don't read the opening statements. Bgwhite (talk) 17:30, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Bgwhite: This, to me, is a case of WP:BITE, albeit probably unintentional. The editor who created the article has an account that is all of five days old. He has a heck of a lot to learn about Wikipedia, as I'm sure you'll appreciate. As others have pointed out, it would have been better to let WT:SHIPS know of the potential problem. Now, how about withdrawing and closing this nomination? Mjroots (talk) 17:37, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mjroots I already closed the nomination several minutes before you wrote the above. I even sent you a thanks before you wrote the above. I was not aware of WT:SHIPS. I was already cursed out by the creating editor before the nomination. Bgwhite (talk) 17:48, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Any reason why this new article ought to be deleted, rather than fixed? Andy Dingley (talk) 14:07, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. Nominator agrees that the ship is notable, so why are we at AFD? A post at WT:SHIPS to get some volunteers to help clean the article up would have been a better course of action. Parsecboy (talk) 14:34, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SNOW KEEP - firstly, the article should never have been nominated at AfD. Even the nominator states "the ship is notable". Secondly, the article is now shipshape, notability demonstrated in droves. Mjroots (talk) 17:11, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per nomination, which states it is notable. --do ncr am 17:22, 7 April 2016 (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.