Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lune (1799 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. If an editor wishes to undertake merging, the page can be undeleted and redirected. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 03:41, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lune (1799 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 of any notability, a run-of-the-mill whaling ship without any noteworthy history. Fram (talk) 12:24, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and England. Fram (talk) 12:24, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 13:59, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDATABASE and a clear failure to meet GNG. We should not be in the business of scraping databases to make articles when there's no significant coverage to be found. We may have to launch an RfC to deal with creation of articles such as this one that only scrape databases. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:06, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ -- A run-of-the-mill westindiaman then whaler. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:26, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- revoted below. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:01, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*Redirect to Whaling in the United Kingdom as an alternative to deletion. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 18:44, 25 October 2022 (UTC) Merge appropriate detail, with refs, into Lune (ship). 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 03:47, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not a valid target, as there is no mention of the subject there. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:41, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is mentioned at Lune (ship). Do you have any reason to oppose merging or redirecting there? 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 19:14, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merging into disambiguation pages is not appropriate. Disambiguations are not for everything by a certain name, just the notable examples. Wikipedia:Disambiguation dos and don'ts says Don't include entries without a blue link. It doesn't get more clear than that. What you are suggesting flies in the face of policy. I'm disappointed that I have to explain basics of policy to editors who should really know better. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:37, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so why not redirect instead of merge? (I did mention both as options) 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 19:47, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Trainsandotherthings - Don't be disappointed with others if you don't understand the difference between WP:DAB and WP:SETINDEX. (later) Davidships (talk) 13:52, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can I be disappointed that you don't know how to sign your comments? (I didn't get that ping, because you didn't sign you comment). Trainsandotherthings (talk) 13:31, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. I do know it very well - but just that once forgot (and now rectified). No harm done.Davidships (talk) 13:52, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge appropriate detail, with refs, into ship entry in Lune (ship). Davidships (talk) 00:29, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The appropriate detail is none, because this ship isn't notable and we are not a mirror of databases. Trainsandotherthings (talk) Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:39, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to consider Merge option
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:11, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or at worst merge to Lune (ship), which would consist merely of adding references from this article. The sources are certainly RS, but the ship itself is utterly NN, so that I cannot recommend any kind of retention.

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.