Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lagaren (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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. Liz Read! Talk! 21:32, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
Lagaren (ship)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Lagaren (ship) (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)
Many of the listed sources are notable, though I'm willing to withdraw this nomination if such sources are found. Complex/Rational 15:23, 24 August 2022 (UTC)]
Newly added sources provide more detailed coverage, likely enough to meet the GNG threshold. As stated, I withdraw this nomination (so it may be closed early in the absence of other arguments for deletion), though sourcing does still need work. Complex/Rational 20:13, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:18, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
- Weak keep. I found three articles in a Swedish newspaper archive which spent enough time talking about the ship that it was worth using them as sources, although none of them are primarily focused specifically on Lagaren/Svinbådan. They do, however, refer to it in a way that indicates some small amount of fame beyond what can be expected of a lightvessel. There are sources and indications that we could probably find more, maybe if someone here has simple access to the Royal Library newspaper archive. /Julle (talk) 17:46, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:31, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
- Strong keep I strongly oppose deleting this article. Wikipedia has numerous articles on lightships in which the unique circumstances of their careers were sufficient to justify notability. Notably I can cite WLV-613 and Lightvessel No. 11 as examples, neither of which are Iron-hulled or built in the 19th century. The Lagaren's unusual age, involvement in a drug smuggling case, highly-visible location on the Tenerife dock, and appearance in a Swedish TV Series only add to it's uniqueness. The ship was mentioned three times as one of the main vessel's involved in a drug interdiction case in the cited Spanish article; I fail to understand how that constitutes only a "brief mention" by the article. I would argue that a lightship's connection to a unique and particular hydrographic feature, often for long periods of time, gives them an ipso facto notability that similarly-classed ships that perform interchangeable roles would not have. The ship is unique enough to be the main subject of two articles in the Swedish maritime history magazine Lanspumpen. Granted, I did use Facebook as a source for one particular piece of information: that the ship was refitted in Portsmouth in 2010. If you have an issue with using Facebook as a source, why not simply propose deleting this source rather than deleting the entire article? Altogether, it is easy to prove that "at least two people to have written something substantive (more than just a mention) about that subject that has been published in a reliable source" per Wikipedia guidelines--UshankaCzar (talk) 03:42, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
- The onus is on the creator to demonstrate that such coverage exists and add sources to the article. See Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published sources for why it's often not acceptable as a source – unless the credibility of the author is verified, social media posts can be anything written by anyone. In this case, I withdraw the nomination because the existence of significant coverage in reliable sources has been demonstrated – though in general, claiming to be "unique" is irrelevant unless sources reliably document it. Complex/Rational 20:13, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
- Strong keep I strongly oppose deleting this article. Wikipedia has numerous articles on lightships in which the unique circumstances of their careers were sufficient to justify notability. Notably I can cite WLV-613 and Lightvessel No. 11 as examples, neither of which are Iron-hulled or built in the 19th century. The Lagaren's unusual age, involvement in a drug smuggling case, highly-visible location on the Tenerife dock, and appearance in a Swedish TV Series only add to it's uniqueness. The ship was mentioned three times as one of the main vessel's involved in a drug interdiction case in the cited Spanish article; I fail to understand how that constitutes only a "brief mention" by the article. I would argue that a lightship's connection to a unique and particular hydrographic feature, often for long periods of time, gives them an ipso facto notability that similarly-classed ships that perform interchangeable roles would not have. The ship is unique enough to be the main subject of two articles in the Swedish maritime history magazine Lanspumpen. Granted, I did use Facebook as a source for one particular piece of information: that the ship was refitted in Portsmouth in 2010. If you have an issue with using Facebook as a source, why not simply propose deleting this source rather than deleting the entire article? Altogether, it is easy to prove that "at least two people to have written something substantive (more than just a mention) about that subject that has been published in a reliable source" per Wikipedia guidelines--UshankaCzar (talk) 03:42, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
- Weak keep there seems to be enough coverage in reliable sources to write a short but fully verified article on the subject, sourcing needs work though Draken Bowser (talk) 09:12, 25 August 2022 (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.