Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elisabeth Smit
- 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. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 03:08, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Elisabeth Smit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Don't believe this meets WP:NOTABILITY. A Google search gives virtually no results about the ship itself. BangJan1999 16:58, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Transportation. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:38, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
- Keep As HNLMS Marken (1944) she would have been a commissioned vessel of the Royal Netherlands Navy. The list of minesweepers of the Royal Netherlands Navy reveals she was a 105' version of the MMS-class minesweeper. A little searching reveals enough of her history to bash together at least a start class article. As we all know, needing improvement is not a reason to delete. Mjroots (talk) 18:22, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
- I've bashed together an article. @Mrfoogles and Wcquidditch: commented before I did this, perhaps they might want to re-evaluate the article. Mjroots (talk) 07:44, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
- Pinging @James.folsom:, who I misnamed above. Mjroots (talk) 16:13, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
- Delete There is information there but not every ship in the Netherlands Navy is notable, and that listing is not significant coverage, it's just a database. The current article only cites Wikipedia, and provides no indication of what distinguishes from all the other ships in the Netherlands Navy. Mrfoogles (talk) 19:09, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
- The reference from the Dutch Wikipedia has been removed. Mjroots (talk) 07:44, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:14, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
- Delete, if not merged here MMS-class minesweeper That article more than covers the subject of wooden mine sweepers built by the Netherlands. There is nothing special about any of the individual ships.James.folsom (talk) 23:37, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
- Keep Not at all just another small warship with unremarkable service. After 1977 she was given a radical conversion from motor minesweeper to a three-masted passenger barquentine, for the tourist trade on the IJsselmeer. After the storm damage in 2002, she became a much-photographed cause celebre in the Netherlands, which was unresolved until 2020. There is extensive source material to expand the article further. The proposer's justification ("A Google search gives virtually no results about the ship itself") is completely false. - Davidships (talk) 15:14, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
Then write the article with these sources, or provide them. James.folsom (talk) 16:53, 25 March 2024 (UTC)nevermind James.folsom (talk) 16:58, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
- Comment I looked for guidance on notability of ships for purposes of being a stand alone article. I didn't find anything useful so if anyone knows of any, I'll read it. With this being the case the subject of this wikipedia article needs to meet WP:GNG in order to avoid merger or deletion. Both the google.com and Google.nl sites have only a few hits and the the coverage is sparse and primary in regard to this subject. I don't see any quality sources either in the artilce itself or online that establish this as a notable topic. What would be needed is secondary sources showing significant coverage. James.folsom (talk) 17:37, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
- No doubt depends what you search for. It takes time to work through the 1000+ relevant Google list entries about this ship, select the best sources, and write the story; which I will not be doing today or tomorrow (please email me if you need to know why) - Davidships (talk) 19:44, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
- Comment I also notice that someone using the handle "david ships" or "davidships" has posted a lot online in regard to ships, and I wonder if there is a conflict of interest occurring here.James.folsom (talk) 17:37, 25 March 2024 (UTC):
- There isn't. What did you have in mind? WP:COI does not mean Coincidence of Interest; I came upon this ship just last month and dug around a bit here, and added to List of shipwrecks in 2002. - Davidships (talk) 19:44, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
- Not claiming anything. It's just wise to mention it upfront if you you know your name is going to be found during WP:before for a subject, and you are voting in the AFD for that subject. James.folsom (talk) 20:05, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
- @James.folsom: have you considered that it's possible that the guy named "davidships" is just someone named David who likes ships? It is no crime to be passionate about a subject on the encyclopedia. Don't jump to wild conclusions about other editors without assuming good faith. Fritzmann (message me) 13:34, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
- Your seeing wild conclusions where none exist. I simply observed and reported something I thought the editors here should know. James.folsom (talk) 20:11, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
- @James.folsom: have you considered that it's possible that the guy named "davidships" is just someone named David who likes ships? It is no crime to be passionate about a subject on the encyclopedia. Don't jump to wild conclusions about other editors without assuming good faith. Fritzmann (message me) 13:34, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
- Not claiming anything. It's just wise to mention it upfront if you you know your name is going to be found during WP:before for a subject, and you are voting in the AFD for that subject. James.folsom (talk) 20:05, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
- There isn't. What did you have in mind? WP:COI does not mean Coincidence of Interest; I came upon this ship just last month and dug around a bit here, and added to List of shipwrecks in 2002. - Davidships (talk) 19:44, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
- Comment: Googled for sources: it looks like there's some coverage, but I don't know if its only local
- https://binnenvaartkrant.nl/muider-spookschip-eindelijk-geborgen, used currently, I can't tell if this is local news? Seems regional at least. It is a trade newspaper though.
- https://www.gooieneemlander.nl/cnt/dmf20180926_76356161?utm_source=google&utm_medium=organic, which is some pretty significant coverage of "this weird old ship the owner's been struggling to pump for so many years"
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_j7MB2dD-8, a segment on the local news.
- Apparently it was relevant to (by google translate) an election campaign for the Water Board. The notability would be because it became rentable later on in its life, and it's locally important as the "ghost ship" (google translate) because it just sat in the harbor for so long. Mrfoogles (talk) 18:26, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
- This is my point, the sources available are all routine news coverage in the local press. Many of the sources are just facts and figures, so verifiability is met. So, we know the boat exists, but alot of boats exist. The next step here is to establish that the boat is more important and relevant to the general public, (not specialists), than the bulk of the other boats. The election stunt was notable but the boat is a bit player and the notability from the event doesn't transfer to boat. To make that work you need a source that says the the notoriety of the boat played a role in it's selection for the stunt (EG any boat could have been rented, why that one?). The ghost ship angle is also interesting but is there anything special about that boat that played a role in that phenomenon (EG if another boat had wrecked in that spot instead, would it have mattered?). Okay, so I hear it was a charter vessel for while, was it the best one, what made it more desirable or more useful or more important than other charter vessel. Sources that establish any of this or something similar are needed. The mere existence of sources doesn't equal notability. James.folsom (talk) 19:06, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
- "more important and relevant to the general public, (not specialists), than the bulk of the other boats." This is not how notability is established. All that is required for notability is coverage, not more coverage than other subjects in the same topic. There are a million sportsball players that have articles because they are notable, without consideration for their relative importance to other sportsball players. A subject either has coverage, or it does not. This one does. Fritzmann (message me) 13:37, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
- your mistaken. James.folsom (talk) 20:13, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
- "more important and relevant to the general public, (not specialists), than the bulk of the other boats." This is not how notability is established. All that is required for notability is coverage, not more coverage than other subjects in the same topic. There are a million sportsball players that have articles because they are notable, without consideration for their relative importance to other sportsball players. A subject either has coverage, or it does not. This one does. Fritzmann (message me) 13:37, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
- This is my point, the sources available are all routine news coverage in the local press. Many of the sources are just facts and figures, so verifiability is met. So, we know the boat exists, but alot of boats exist. The next step here is to establish that the boat is more important and relevant to the general public, (not specialists), than the bulk of the other boats. The election stunt was notable but the boat is a bit player and the notability from the event doesn't transfer to boat. To make that work you need a source that says the the notoriety of the boat played a role in it's selection for the stunt (EG any boat could have been rented, why that one?). The ghost ship angle is also interesting but is there anything special about that boat that played a role in that phenomenon (EG if another boat had wrecked in that spot instead, would it have mattered?). Okay, so I hear it was a charter vessel for while, was it the best one, what made it more desirable or more useful or more important than other charter vessel. Sources that establish any of this or something similar are needed. The mere existence of sources doesn't equal notability. James.folsom (talk) 19:06, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
- Possible keep. It's definitely locally notable in Muiden. If non-local notability can be shown, then definitely keep. If it can't, maybe merge it in to Muiden? It does stand out that it got converted for recreational purposes but on the other hand its probably not the only dutch recreational-converted ship either. @Mjroots says "she became a much-photographed cause celebre in the Netherlands", but according to these articles she's only relevant to local politics (unless the "Water Board" is not what I think it is.) Mrfoogles (talk) 18:46, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
- I think that if someone can find another non-local non-trade-magazine source like #2 above, then this satisfies GNG Mrfoogles (talk) 19:03, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. Commissioned naval vessels have always been considered to be notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:16, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
- Keep, per my above comment. Fritzmann (message me) 13:38, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
- Weak keep, as “that one boat that got turned into a civilian-rentable boat and sat half-broken on the IJsselmeer for 18 years and got called a “ghost ship”, rather than as “this one ship in the Dutch navy.” Mrfoogles (talk) 20:57, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
- I still think the argument here is more convincing as a delete vote, but I really like the concise way that MrFoogles sums it up. James.folsom (talk) 20:19, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
- 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.