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. (non-admin closure) —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 10:19, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vadne (ferry) (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)

Other than some trivial listings showing that ship did exist, searches on News, Newspapers, Books, Scholar, Highbeam and JSTOR turned up nothing which would show notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:47, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies in advance if this lacks coherency - it's a bit difficult at the moment. I have seen 'Solent Enterprise' and several other former or current Gosport ferries have articles of their own, and appear to have no issue with notability. Vadne is shown on the SimplonPC website (at http://www.simplonpc.co.uk/PortsmouthHFC.html#Vadne ), which may help here or may not, but the same source is cited in several other ferry articles. This particular vessel was of some local notoriety, featuring in the regional newspaper after a collision with a warship and the death of a passenger - whether any of the Gosport ferries have notability on a level outside Hampshire, I don't know, but Vadne seems to be just as well-placed, in that department, as the others. Dan (talk) 18:09, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Hi Daniel Karmy - That's an argument based on WP:OSE (other stuff exists), and that criteria alone doesn't merit keeping an article. In order to show notability, there must be "substantial coverage" from independent, reliable sources. Take a look at WP:GNG to see what constitutes substantial coverage. This ship simply does not seem to meet that. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:22, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into Forton Lake or Gosport Ferry (or both). The information is pertinent to both of those articles as a feature of the lake and a former ferry, but I agree that it doesn't quite merit an article of its own. WaggersTALK 13:50, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:05, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:05, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:05, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This was a fairly prominently known vessel in its working life. As a wreck it's quite well known today as the best-known 'flagship' of the Forton Lake hulks. I'm not local to the South Coast, but of people who pay any attention to wrecks like this in other parts of the country, Vadne is a recognisable name.

No objection though to a well-done merge into Forton Lake. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:37, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• For my part, I don't mind either way - were this a long article and an arduous task, I may have felt differently, but I've nothing against the merge with Forton Lake either. I would perhaps keep it for the ship's archaeological significance - although I was surprised to learn Vadne is well-known elsewhere in the country! There again, fellow ferries of that era, for instance Vita and Ferry Queen, don't have articles here, and if they're not quite enough for pages of their own, it follows that neither is Vadne. Merge seems fair enough, and in that case, I'd add sections on several other prominent wrecks in the lake (over time). Dan (talk) 19:53, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This is well-known vessel today as a wreck that, when active, was notable for naval service on two continents and for a rare collision resulting in loss of life. I have no doubt that she is covered by other books and that the collision in particular was the subject of more extensive news coverage in 1967 - but I do not have access to them at present. Google tests are not very helpful in these circumstances. If merged, should be with Forton Lake as part of a series on the individual vessels, rather than with Gosport Ferry which is not at present structured to cover the historic fleet. Davidships (talk) 22:55, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Regarding the collision with HMS Redpole in July 1957 - I have several images of newspaper clippings published in the aftermath of the incident in the Portsmouth News. I can upload those here and, whether Vadne has a section or an article of her own, should really add something about that collision (edit - have just checked article again. My apologies). As David and Andy mention, it was almost a notable occurrence in and of itself, especially as it resulted in the only fatality in the ferry company's 130-year history. Dan (talk) 23:37, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I've been holding my fire over this, but the article has been improved and now demonstrates the vessel's notability. Mjroots (talk) 19:06, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Y Keep given recent referencing improvements. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:58, 7 September 2015 (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.