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 KEEP. postdlf (talk) 17:54, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

LST-766[edit]

LST-766 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The one source cited in this article does not seem to be significant coverage, and the subject seems to be unremarkable. Furthermore, the text of the article is exactly the same as the source. RadManCF ☢ open frequency 22:55, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:35, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]


I believe that the subject matter of this article is significant, and should be retained. In support of this, I would offer the following arguments:
1. The subject matter is culturally important. World War II was one of the most significant points of American history. It is also an incredibly large topic; too large in fact, to be entirely covered by traditional history books. This is part of was makes Wikipedia so special, it doesn't have to eliminate topics simply due to space limitations. We have a limited number of WWII vets still with us who can contribute a living history, but every day we lose more and more of these men and women. One could say that the existence of any one LST was insignificant, but this ignores the fact that it was important to many thousands of people. Overall, LST were a large part of the war in the Pacific. Individually, the specific ships are important to the men who served on them; the men who stormed these islands; the families of the men who served; and any researcher who might be trying to document some as-of-yet unimagined aspect of the war.
2. There is a broad heading listing all US Navy LSTs. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Navy_LSTs) The existence of this list suggests that the Wikipedia project is making an attempt to document the details of each individual ship on the list. Similar details have already been preserved about a number of these ships. I'm not sure why this would be any different.

Forgive me if I originally complicated this matter by including text in the article too close to the cited source. I have gone back to the article and substantially re-written it using original language. I have also documented the content with additional references. I hope you will allow this article to stand as amended.
Thank you,Aboklage (talk) 03:09, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reason to nominate this for deletion, I have seen 1000's of other articles like this being created in the past, so why should this one be delated and all other kept? Ruigeroeland (talk) 07:31, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The two above arguments fall under WP:ILIKEIT, and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, respectively. Just because other articles like this have been created, doesn't make them worthy of inclusion.RadManCF ☢ open frequency 13:33, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ships is not a policy or guideline, and the source cited strikes me as WP:ROUTINE coverage. RadManCF ☢ open frequency 13:33, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That is not the case, several users have pointed out that this vessel has significant coverage in reliable sources. That is also the reason I am !voting keep - because this ship is covered as a topic of interest in its own right by both the Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships and by the U.S. Coast Guard historian's website. Gatoclass (talk) 15:07, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly which point are you saying "That is not the case" to? I would argue that inclusion in the Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships is WP:ROUTINE coverage in this case, and the USCG historian is not independent of the subject. !votes like Toddy1's "Articles on ships like this are very much needed" are WP:ILIKEIT. Including articles on individual landing craft seems like cruft to me. The quality of this article's sourcing has certainly improved since I nominated the article for deletion, but is still questionable, IMO. RadManCF ☢ open frequency 20:31, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to dispute the notability convention, then a single AfD is not really the way to go about it. An argument based on extensive consensus is indeed a policy/guideline-based !vote, even if the participation in consensus was limited only to editors interested in the subject matter (which, really, is all we can reasonably expect). There is nothing mundane about a battle star (and, FYI, my argument "rest" upon this award), nor is DANFS coverage routine. Your definition of "cruft" seems to really fly in the face of the definition of the vast majority of editors who have bothered to voice an opinion. Essentially, it really sounds like you are the one making an argument not based in policy, essentially WP:IDONTLIKEIT (and why that would be is totally beyond me anyway, unless it's an argument toward WP:OTHERSTUFF). bahamut0013wordsdeeds 23:23, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Since User:RadManCF has chosen to single out my view, I will respond. My point of view is the Wikipedia exists to be a useful source of reference. Maybe you disagree? Good quality information on individual ships is useful, and therefore articles on them should be encouraged. It is likely that the overwhelming majority editors who have contributed to this discussion in favour of keeping this article see things with a wider perspective.--Toddy1 (talk) 08:54, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct that I don't like this article, because it conflicts with my understanding of policy. I don't disagree that there is a consensus behind the conventions that are being used to support the keep votes, I am arguing that those keep votes are less valid because the conventions that they are not policies or guidelines, and as I understand the relevant policies/ guidelines, this article was questionable, at the time of nomination. I do feel that the sourcing has improved. I should have mentioned WP:NOTDIR above also, as the article to me seems very much like a directory entry (I thought the NOTDIR reasoning was implicit in my previous arguments, but I guess not). As to the mundanity of a battle star, perhaps that's a matter of personal opinion (as an aside, to allow you to gauge my standards of mundanity, I feel that high school valadictorians are rather unimpressive, as the subject matter in high school is not that difficult, they only had to successfully regurgitate everything they were told in order to attain that status, and lastly, the shear number of them.) I realize that I'm using the word Cruft outside its usual context (minutae of detail about Pokemon or similar phenomena, written like an entry in a fan magazine) , and I should point out that I never gave my working definition of cruft, so here you go: 1. Article's subject is of questionable significance/importance/notability on it's own. 2. interest in the subject is mostly confined to a certain group of people. 3. the article contains an excessive level of detail that would interest few people outside of the aforementioned group. Some examples that I feel meet these criteria would include: articles on individual bus routes, articles on individual pokemon, most articles on esoteric programing languages, just to name a few. I would argue that articles on individual LSTs are on the borderline. On the subject of DANFS coverage, I appologise for my characterization, I had misread WP:ROUTINE. Lastly, I was somewhat surprised by reaction to this Afd, and appologise if I have offended anyone by this. RadManCF ☢ open frequency 17:25, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Seems you mistakenly deleted my comment; I think you might have meant to post at the bottom of the thread and assumed you copied it by accident. I've restored it and shifted your response below it for chronological order.
I'm not offended, and I hope others aren't. You have an opinion, a perfectly valid one, and it seems to be about an issue that hasn't really been challenged much before (simply being in the minority isn't a reason to apologize). I think that bringing it up at WT:SHIPS would be a better course of action than an AfD, since it has implications for far more than just this article. If you still feel strongly that a wide enough net hasn't been cast for consensus, then go for RfC.
But to the point: I don't think NOTDIR applies here because this isn't a directory (or a single entry in one); otherwise, there would be articles on each LST. Live people looked at this ship, found sources, and wrote prose (granted, a bit was originally copied from PD, but that's been worked on since). I don't really subscribe to the comparisons, though, with Pokémon and the like (that actually could be insulting if you direct it toward the subjects rather than the articles, or were trying to insinuate that military historians are on par with prepubescent anime fans; there is a big difference between fans and subject matter experts). It's not as if we are chomping at the bit to include every miniscule detail about every ship, boat, and barge that ever had a sailor on board. We are academics (i.e. educated and versed in WP policy) and came to limits after careful consideration; and yes, there are limits (take for instance, USS Montana, merged to the class article because it was never actually built). Is the interested audience more narrow than the audience for a pop star? Yes, but it's well-established that popularity doesn't equate to notability. I'm not going to sway you on signifcance, but I can on excessive detail: listing the stats of a ship isn't usually considered excessive; by comparison, publishing the watch logs for the officer of the deck would be.
Like I said, you're not wrong to be the dissenting minority (in fact, I salute the bravery), but I don't think you can really say that an article about a warship is "cruft" without seriously loosening the definition. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 20:40, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I'd agree that my definition of cruft may be a bit idiosyncratic, and the comparisons I made were really meant to address what struck me as similarities in how the two groups use and present certain information, not on the quality of the information itself. RadManCF ☢ open frequency 01:33, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. There really is very little to say about this landing ship and I would somewhat prefer we summarised it with a few sentences in the class article. I echo GraemeLeggett's point - we do not include all commissioned ships on principle, we include them because they tend to attract decent coverage. If any warships non-notable it will probably be an unnamed, generic transport with an uneventful career. But in this case, there is just about receive enough coverage in independent sources to pass the general notability guideline. The Land (talk) 15:49, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I admit that there is little to distinguish this ship from others of its class but I personally think its a very good thing for Wikipedia to have a comprehensive list of articles on military vessels. --Kumioko (talk) 23:15, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the article has references now and it seems likely that there is "significant independent coverage" of this topic in reliable sources. Therefore I think it is safe to assume that it is notable under WP:MILMOS/N and WP:GNG. Anotherclown (talk) 02:17, 4 April 2011 (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.
More