Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elmar Kivistik (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 delete and redirect‎ to Estonian Shipping Company. Not going to prejudge a discussion at another venue and as it's mentioned it's a reasonable redirect. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:25, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Elmar Kivistik (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)

Fails WP:GNG: just WP:ROUTINE coverage. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 18:36, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Estonia. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:48, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Delete would be a strange option as the Estonian Shipping Company has an article. At the very least this should be a redirect. I did not check for sources so not a !vote, just my two cents. gidonb (talk) 00:39, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:57, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Estonian Shipping Company: Can't find any SIRS sources, redirecting is an ATD per gidonb. CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} 01:23, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm not crazy about redirecting to Estonian Shipping Company – all that page tells the reader is that the Elmar Kivitisk is a ship formerly operated by that company. These sort of redirects are frequently created at AfD as an alternative to deletion, but too often end up at RfD. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 11:56, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why on earth would it end up on RfD? "no mention in the target article"? Nope, it's there. Pelmeen10 (talk) 16:04, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but it's unhelpful to the reader looking for concrete information. It's misleading. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 16:13, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the point being made here by the nom, in that redirecting to the parent company with no additional detail is unhelpful and without purpose. I do not think someone searching for this ship will find helpful resource having being sent to Estonian Shipping Company. On balance, considering the redirect proposal, I would suggest simply deleting. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:13, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:58, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I do not see any value in a redirect to the company where the subject is not discussed in any meaningful way (a list entry, among others, does not constitute a mention). Furthermore, if I was treating this as a RFD for arguments sake, I would consider WP:R#DELETE point 10 of reasons to not have a RD, which states "If the redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article, and the target article contains virtually no information on the subject." - this could, at some future point, become an article but the proposed target discussed here I do not think offers value at this time and so without a credible claim to notability, I suggest deleting. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:09, 26 August 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.