Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SS Santhia
- 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Howicus (Did I mess up?) 04:27, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- SS Santhia (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)
This appears to have been a wholly unremarkable ship. It was built, sailed uneventfully, and was scrapped. No in-depth sources on Google, and Newspapers.com only turned up routine "Santhia arrived in this port"-type mentions. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 22:27, 24 March 2016 (UTC) I think I was considering this article in an incorrect way. I considered it in isolation without thinking about the larger context. Nomination withdrawn.Howicus (Did I mess up?) 04:27, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- Keep unless there is an appropriate list-article that it can be covered in, in which case redirect to the list item covering it. There are not very many ships of this size. As for U.S. Liberty Ships, why not just list them all? The article does provide useful reference info: this ship is the one that was renamed to a Japanese name; it was an innocuous ship (perfectly okay result when you want to look up the ship that delivered goods, immigrants, whatever to someplace.) Seriously, it makes sense to list them all, making separate articles unnecessary for many of them yet allowing for lookup of basic facts. See List of Liberty ships. We don't want a thousand separate AFD decisions to be made. Anyone can merge/redirect without an AFD. Note: I did not attempt to find sources that might establish separate article notability. --doncram 02:17, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- Of note: this ship is one of not very many that brought indentured servants (slaves?).from India to Fiji. All such ships have articles. Descendants should be able to get info about it. See the article in "what links here". It also served many other purposes no doubt, so it cAnt merely be an item in that one list of ships, it would have to be an item in list of Japanese merchant ships too. And rather than repeat basic facts it is easiest to present them once in one article. -doncram 02:27, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- Doncram, I do not fully understand what you are saying here. Are you arguing for a keep because I am nominating only a single ship instead of many? I was originally intending this to be a "test" nomination, to see what people thought about the notability of this ship, so that if consensus was otherwise (as it most certainly seems to be) I wouldn't have to go to the trouble of sorting out the ships with similar less-eventful careers and bulk nominating them. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 01:18, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- What category or list or other set of ships were you addressing? My view of your best way forward is not to test current AFD editors' knowledge or interest about isolated ones (and then punch gaps into our collected knowledge by deleting ones effectively at random) but rather to create or expand organized knowledge by creating or adding to sensible list-articles. In fact I object to deletion of any significant (largish) ship's article if we do not "know what it is" and serve readers by letting them look it up. If a ship is satisfactorily identified in at least one list-article and there is not any more "useful"(?) information about it in its separate article, then it can be "deleted" by redirecting it to a wp:anchor at its place in the list-article. But also all its "useful"(?) info must also be reflected in any 2nd or 3rd list-article that should exist and/or the 2 or 3 list-items should link to each other, so readers can get all the info. And the original article's edit history and past content should be kept in it becoming a redirect to its list-item (or most important one). This may sound bureaucratic but why should we tolerate loss of context information that can be conveyed in a list? And I believe all "largish" ships can be listed, by purpose and/or actual use or shipbuilder and/or otherwise. For this one it is turning out that it should be included in 3 lists (builder, indentured servants-carrier, Japanese shipping line), none of which can carry all of its info so an article for it is needed and most efficient. Again your way forward to eliminate some articles is to build list-articles. That's my opinion anyhow. It's an approach I have used, for example about topics ("named corners") that one or a few editors thought were horrible, by building List of named corners of the Snaefell Mountain Course. It took time and many of the corners' articles survived separately, but some were redirected (without AFDs) and show as black links in the list, and many more new contentious articles were avoided. It stopped a long series of contentious AFDs which
consumeddemanded and wasted many editors' time. I perceive contention on ships' deletions, too, and so do you probably. If you agree, please avoid that and go the route of building lists. :) - To answer your question directly it did bother me that you were picking on one ship out of the set of indentured servants-carriers, and I did mean to imply that as an issue in addition to other issues I spoke of more directly. IMO we need to be more explicit in discussing standards and addressing "fairness"; the "other stuff exists" issue does matter and should not be dismissed, especially in fairly well-established types of topics like ships...we should be completing articles on more important and winnowing articles on non-important ships by now, with explicit objective definitions by now what are the criteria (better than "largish" which is arguably the only major criterion "defined" so far. If you were in fact aiming at, and working from, that set then IMHO you would have done better to explain that rather than allowing others to "discover" that this ship has some significance in that context and that you seemed unaware of that. If you would have explained you thought the indentured servants-carrier "list-article" carried all that was "useful" to say about the ship then you would have had a better chance in getting it eliminated by redirection to that list. Is there a different category you were working from, though, that we could now work together at "listifying"? --doncram 03:48, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- Doncram, I encountered this specific article in recent changes, but the list I'm talking about is Indian indenture ships to Fiji. Though, I see now that perhaps my reasoning was flawed; I considered this ship in isolation, like I would an obscure biography or company, without really considering the wider context. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 04:27, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- What category or list or other set of ships were you addressing? My view of your best way forward is not to test current AFD editors' knowledge or interest about isolated ones (and then punch gaps into our collected knowledge by deleting ones effectively at random) but rather to create or expand organized knowledge by creating or adding to sensible list-articles. In fact I object to deletion of any significant (largish) ship's article if we do not "know what it is" and serve readers by letting them look it up. If a ship is satisfactorily identified in at least one list-article and there is not any more "useful"(?) information about it in its separate article, then it can be "deleted" by redirecting it to a wp:anchor at its place in the list-article. But also all its "useful"(?) info must also be reflected in any 2nd or 3rd list-article that should exist and/or the 2 or 3 list-items should link to each other, so readers can get all the info. And the original article's edit history and past content should be kept in it becoming a redirect to its list-item (or most important one). This may sound bureaucratic but why should we tolerate loss of context information that can be conveyed in a list? And I believe all "largish" ships can be listed, by purpose and/or actual use or shipbuilder and/or otherwise. For this one it is turning out that it should be included in 3 lists (builder, indentured servants-carrier, Japanese shipping line), none of which can carry all of its info so an article for it is needed and most efficient. Again your way forward to eliminate some articles is to build list-articles. That's my opinion anyhow. It's an approach I have used, for example about topics ("named corners") that one or a few editors thought were horrible, by building List of named corners of the Snaefell Mountain Course. It took time and many of the corners' articles survived separately, but some were redirected (without AFDs) and show as black links in the list, and many more new contentious articles were avoided. It stopped a long series of contentious AFDs which
- Doncram, I do not fully understand what you are saying here. Are you arguing for a keep because I am nominating only a single ship instead of many? I was originally intending this to be a "test" nomination, to see what people thought about the notability of this ship, so that if consensus was otherwise (as it most certainly seems to be) I wouldn't have to go to the trouble of sorting out the ships with similar less-eventful careers and bulk nominating them. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 01:18, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- Keep - per -doncram. InsertCleverPhraseHere 02:40, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 09:35, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- Keep There appears to be plenty of material with which to expand the article from. That already in the article, plus Lloyd's Register of Shipping]. Mjroots (talk) 17:19, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- Keep - per above. - theWOLFchild 17:55, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. Santhia was one of seven S-class passenger-cargo ships of British-India Steam Navigation Company of 1901-1902. One other, Sangola, already has a stub article. They could be combined into an appropriately titled Class article, covering also the other five. Davidships (talk) 18:17, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- Keep Not because it's an interesting piece of shipbuilding, but because of the social history concerning Fiji. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:11, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- Comment Article looking a little more shipshape now. Mjroots (talk) 20:11, 25 March 2016 (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.