Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clydesdale (1819 ship)

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. Although questions have been raised about the sourcing of this article (with varying opinions expressed), I see a consensus among editors to Keep this article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:37, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Clydesdale (1819 ship)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

No evidence found of actual notability, sources are primary or passing mentions. Being the largest vessel of a short-lived company, carrying some passengers of little notability, and basically doing what trade ships do (including, as was very common in these years, colliding with another ship), all amount to not much in the end. Fram (talk) 10:26, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Transportation, and United Kingdom. Fram (talk) 10:26, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG. The article on Clydesdale by Sindall (1937) is not primary and not a passing mention. The coverage in Ships of the East India Company (2001) also appears to be substantial. The coverage in the 19th century (contemporaneous), 20th century, and 21st century (young) show sustained interest in the Clydesdale. gidonb (talk) 16:28, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Dubious -- While I have no reason to doubt the accuracy of the content, I remain dubious of whether any merchant ship of a past era is notable unless there is something quite special about it. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:51, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep jengod (talk) 22:23, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi jengod, thank you for sharing your opinion on this AfD! Could you still explain, even briefly, how you reached it? gidonb (talk) 13:07, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

9 sources, 2 explanatory footnotes, an infobox, a little table, and a mention of Mauritius are things I like to see in a Wikipedia article. jengod (talk) 15:01, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's the quality of the sources that matters, not the number. An article could have 50 sources, but if they were all unreliable, it would be the same as having zero sources as far as notability is concerned. Conversely, an article could have 3 sources and be notable if they're all significant coverage, reliable, independent, and secondary. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:05, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for clarifying that your assessment is based on the sources and for pointing out that there are other desirable elements in the article. For the most part, the assessment should be based on the quality of the sources. Hopefully that is why you listed these first. If the sources are of high quality, 2 can be sufficient. In some cases even one! gidonb (talk) 05:06, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I do not see evidence of significant coverage in reliable, independent, secondary sources. Keep voters have asserted that coverage "appears to be substantial" without any evidence. Most of what is cited to Hackman 2001 isn't even about the ship! Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:50, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The proposal for deletion makes clear that significance is subjective, and notability is mutable. I consider the references in the histories of Greenock to be notable and significant to the authors: there are hundreds of vessels they could have mentioned but did not mention. Clydesdale was worth mentioning; it had meaning to the readers at the time. As for mutability, the article by Sindal is based on Captain Rose's journal or logbook. There may be more, but all I could access was a Google snippet view, and the book in which it appears is rare and not in any library to which I have access. So does notability depend on whether an editor lives in city with a library that has a particular book, or if relevant material is out of copyright? Furthermore, when one deletes an article, it cannot improve, even if someone can find the book, and if there is more in the article. Earlier today I found a photo of an 1820 painting of "Clydesdale of Glasgow" by the noted marine painter Robert Salmon. The permalink is: [1]. The Paul Mellon Centre Photographic Archive had a project of photographing art as it came up for auction, and this is a photo of the painting when it came up for auction in 1984 at Sotheby's. The photo is available under a Creative Commons license, but I cannot see any point in trying to figure out how to get permission to add it to the article and how to add it to the article when editors remark casually that they are "dubious of whether any merchant ship of a past era is notable...", and the article may well be destroyed shortly. Should the picture come up for auction again and a colour copy be available for adding to the article, that is just too bad. What is the point of correcting typos or grammar, improving readability, or adding background and contextual information, or adding pictures to any article that is not already certified as notable? Acad Ronin (talk) 04:20, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have time to transcribe now but I just added a photo of text from the Edinburgh Advertiser about the "Clydesdale of Glasgow." If nothing else it'll exist in Commons as a resource for a future article about this painting LOL jengod (talk) 15:45, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:42, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. With 15 citations, no need to delete. NYC Guru (talk) 03:53, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mauritius-related deletion discussions. gidonb (talk) 21:45, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:38, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I can't find free online access to some of the sources cited in the article, but User:Gidonb says Sindall (1937) is more than a passing reference and I see no reason not to AGF on his assessment. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 09:19, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆. It's a magazine article on the ship, 2 pages long (477-478), in the series "Ships of the Past". gidonb (talk) 13:04, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Enough sourcing IMHO. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 00:37, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources. NYC Guru (talk) 06:26, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Duplicate vote struck. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:45, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Shockingly, this AfD has been open since January 16. It has been relisted twice! All this while no case has been made for deletion. The intro says sources are primary or passing mentions. I do not know how that squares with a magazine article on this very vessel. An editor says I remain dubious of whether any merchant ship of a past era is notable unless there is something quite special about it.. This sounds exactly like the reverse of WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES, only that the argument here is that there mustn't be sources. Either way, an argument to avoid. Much better to let the sources lead wherever they lead. On such wobbly grounds, the nominator and just one respondent support straight deletion. Now let's assume that one is extremely strict and that fine sources are just not good enough for you. Even then, per WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE, straight deletion would NOT be a recommended path forward. Concluding: WP:RECENTISM is an ENORMOUS problem around Wikipedia. AT LONG LAST, someone writes a fine article on a historic subject. Why try to destruct it, disregarding both sources and policies? gidonb (talk) 09:33, 3 February 2023 (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.