Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Piri (1994)

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:34, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Piri (1994)

[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 an average oil tanker. See this discussion. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 16:42, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 16:42, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:10, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per Davidships's comment at the discussion linked above; he has explained the references well. Bsoyka (talk · contribs) 17:45, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This ship seems to have had a standard working life, and the references do not show that the ship passes the criteria for WP:GNG. Implacable18 (talk) 17:50, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: (from my earlier comment, for convenience) Such a tanker could be notable for a number of reasons, if multiple reliable independent sources had written in depth about this ship, but there is not the slightest hint of anything encyclopaedic in the present content, nor in the references give ..... A Gcheck also produced nothing at all. If all that can be produced is basic ship description data for an infobox, I cannot see how that could possibly meet WP:GNG. Furthermore, in this case the creation of the article seems to have been some sort of personal project, with an undeclared interest by a 6-day creator-editor who was a seaman on the ship and took the two photos he placed in the article (see the Commons pages) - no hint of any assertion of notability.

By the way, the article was pointlessly moved from Torben Spirit; that's the name to use for source searching (but beware, there's a more recent ship of the same name). Davidships (talk) 00:23, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because it is an average ship.Fulmard (talk) 04:41, 23 February 2022 (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.