Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of boats in Arthur Ransome books

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.

List of boats in Arthur Ransome books

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected csp |username}}.

List of boats in Arthur Ransome books (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable collection of fictional minutia TTN (talk) 01:08, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I actually had a need for the information provided in this article, and am happy that it is here.--173.220.231.34 (talk) 17:34, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Ransome is a significant and notable prize winning children's author. He included a large number of boats in his books, several of which are actually the titles of the books in the series. They are not trivial or non-notable to anyone interested in studying Ransome as is shown by the fact they are included in books written about him and his work. Dabbler (talk) 03:16, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 01:08, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 01:08, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - a list of items related to a significant series of books (and their real-life origins) Hugo999 (talk) 08:02, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, trivia, unsourced, no out of universe notability. Also @
  I like it" is not a reason to keep. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:27, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a reason to delete. The complaint about out of universe notability shows that TPH doesn't understand the topic, as Ransome's fictional boats were typically based on real boats and many of them still exist or have been recreated so you can actually sail in them. Andrew D. (talk) 13:11, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete.
  WP:NLIST. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:54, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. How trivial and ORish does it get? "Each of the following has an unnamed rowing-boat: ... In We Didn't Mean to go to Sea Mother (probably belonging to Miss Powell or the boatman)". Clarityfiend (talk) 07:18, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • So evidence of an attempt to be fully comprehensive is a sign that the article is "trivial"? Would you apply this same standard to other articles and lists where people have attempted to be comprehensive even if it means including some items of perhaps lesser importance? Dabbler (talk) 17:33, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The topic is notable as it passes
  WP:LISTN. Examples of detailed coverage include The World of Arthur Ransome; Where are Ransome’s Boats Now?; Arthur Ransome's Boats; Setting sail on Arthur Ransome's boat; Ransome’s lakes revisited; Notes on Arthur Ransome's boats; Arthur Ransome’s East Coast; Arthur Ransome Pin Mill Jamboree; &c. Andrew D. (talk) 13:11, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - The sources provided by Andrew Davidson are not sufficient as reliable, secondary sources regarding the list of fictional boats. One of them (this one,is a personal fansite, and not reliable sources. All of the rest of them are not actually about the fictional boats that this list is about, but about the real life boats owned by Arthur Ransome, which is a completely different subject. Two of them (this one and this one) are about the Nancy Blackett (cutter), a real life boat owned by Arthur Ransome, and while it may have been named after a character from the books, is not actually a boat in the books, and thus is not part of this list. This one is, similarly, not about one of the fictional boats that appeared in the books, but on another real-life boat owned by Arthur Ransome, the Peter Duck, named after a character from his books. This one is not only just a personal fansite, it is also talking about the real life boats. And finally, this one and this one are not talking about the fictional books that appear on this list, but about Arthur Ransome's real life, and the real boats he owned. So, in short, searching for sources come up with non-reliable fansites on the fictional boats, and some reliable sources on the real life boats owned by the author that, while possibly useful sources for his own article, are not even on the topic that this list is about, which is the fictional boats that appeared in his books. Rorshacma (talk) 16:51, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nancy Blackett (cutter) is not only a real boat owned by Ransome but is also the original for the fictional Goblin in the book We Didn't Mean to Go to Sea. As for reliable sources, is the book referenced in the list not count as a reliable source? When do you describe a scholarly article as fan article? Why do you call the website (All Things Ransome) of an incorporated entity that provides an extensive collection of researched articles and other Ransome related material a "personal fansite". It is perhaps not all peer reviewed but it is far from trivia. Dabbler (talk) 17:28, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, the Nancy Blackett was the inspiration of one of the fictional boats, as were three others of his according to the sources, but again, the sources are about the boats as they existed in real life. Sources that are entirely about how the real life boats are notable, with a line or two about how they inspired a couple of the fictional boats, is not significant coverage on the fictional boats. And since, according to these sources, only four of the real world boats were the basis of any of the multitude of boats on this list, that fact certainly does not allow this list to pass
      WP:RELIABLESOURCE.Rorshacma (talk) 17:50, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
      ]
• Delete No significant independent coverage of these boats. Thanks to Rorshacma for deconstructing the typical "Here's some irrelevant Google search results I found but didn't read" nonsense. As usual, they make the series notable but not this particular list! Boats that are integral to the series' plots should be mentioned at Swallows and Amazons series or the book articles, not listed just because they happen to be mentioned. Reywas92^Talk 19:10, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Rorshacma's commentary.
  Aoba47 (talk) 19:15, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per Rorshacma who sadly had to waste his time analyzing the
  WP:REFBOMB of what should have been a foregone conclusion._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 21:37, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I favour keeping this article. Major series of books; the boats are an integral part of the series. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Julien Foster (talk • contribs) 19:05, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Andrew D's and Dabbler's commentaries. Though it does need expansion and clean up. Broichmore (talk) 04:34, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The deletion request is only about a lack of sources for this page, so any justifications for deletion based on triviality or notability are irrelevant and more importantly invalid.

However, it is even more important to note that the deletion request overlooks the primary purpose of this article - namely it is a sub-article for a listing of inanimate characters that appear in a series of books. The primary type of references should be in-text links back to the relevant book articles.

An example of this may be found via the series article Swallows and Amazons series, where under the Major Characters section there is a link to a subarticle for characters in the series: List of Swallows and Amazons characters

As this article is the equivalent of the above for boat characters that appear in the series, it should be improved and linked appropriately.

In hindsight, this article should have been tagged for cleanup and improvement rather than for deletion, as it is Wikipedia's stated policy that if editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page. --Mercurivs (talk) 08:40, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Boats are objects, not inanimate characters. Unless I'm missing some kind of implication of personification, that's a bad comparison. You also have the faulty assumption that character lists are inherently necessary article forks. That character list should be deleted as well considering all the novel articles should easily be able to handle a summary style description of their own characters. TTN (talk) 13:06, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:26, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as per comments above. It is not unsourced: the books themselves provide the source.---Ehrenkater (talk) 17:41, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Primary sources are not able to establish notability. See
  WP:RS. If primary sources are the only sources, it is unsourced. TTN (talk) 17:51, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Notice on Canvasing - So, I happened to notice that "The Arthur Ransome Group" on Facebook has posted a notice to participate in this discussion on their Facebook page. I'm not actually sure on the exact rules on canvasing to know if this counts as
  WP:STEALTH, but I thought it was important to note that this is certainly skewing the discussion. Rorshacma (talk) 18:48, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Not sure if it's stealth canvassing per se, since the group's public, but it's definitely regular old canvassing.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 05:46, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: trivial fancrust.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:28, 18 November 2019 (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.