Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/COSCO fleet lists

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 no consensus. One full calendar month of discussion, three relists, and only one full-throated argument to delete. There's no real urgency on the part of the community to delete this article. A Traintalk 19:39, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

COSCO fleet lists

[edit]
COSCO fleet lists (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 encyclopedic fancruft. PROD was added in 2017 for the reasons being 'No value is added to an encyclopedia by inclusion of a list that is already available from the subject's own website. This article is correct only on the day published. It will require substantial maintenance, likely by hand, which is likely to fall further and further into disrepair' and subsequently removed by its author Ajf773 (talk) 09:16, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for not following etiquette on PROD. The original proposer said I could remove it if I disagreed so I did. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 15:19, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just commenting. there's no rule to proscribe the author of article to remove prod label. However, it'll be good if you inform the person who tagged it. The next step will naturally be an Afd. Quek157 (talk) 08:40, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 09:16, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 09:16, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As I've said before, the information, as presented, is not available from the company website(s). All current information on Wkipedia is liable to fall behind, such as lists of cruise company ships, naval vessels, various statistics on geographical pages and so on. It is in the nature of Wikipedia. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 09:37, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've not yet checked for notability etc, but that the information is accessible from the COSCO's own website doesn't mean it can't be listed here. That argument would undermine probably a majority of "lists of Xs". Lists that couldn't be kept anywhere near up to date might not deserve presence, but I wouldn't say it serves in this, or even most, instances. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:55, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify Standalone fleet lists should present more information than mere vessels names and types. The vast majority of these have no articles of their own but some do, suggesting that there may be enough for future re-moving to main space. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:07, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I was, originally, going to add them to the main COSCO shipping page but was mindful of the caution about overwhelming the main page. I'm quite happy to move them there if that is deemed preferable. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 08:34, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Murgatroyd49: I wasn't sure whether you meant now (in which case, please don't while we are discussing) or just as a "if that's what people want" - apologies if needlessly making sure. I believe you are right that it doesn't belong on the COSCO page.Nosebagbear (talk)
For clarification, if that's what people want. Certainly won't do anything until concensus is reached. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 10:40, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Set of Comments: @Ajf773: - "already available from the subject's own website", data that was already available from a company's own site is distinctly shaky grounds to remove something. If there is a specific point on this, then that might justify it (and perhaps there is) but worth linking to. "This article is correct only on the day published." - that something might fall into disrepair definitely isn't grounds to delete something.
Eggishorn's point about too little information being contained on the list - presumably an argument of a failure to meet Wiki's quality standards/Incubation I wouldn't say matches what we see in most of its counterparts. Now while of course WP:OTHERTHINGSEXIST is there, List of ships built by John Brown & Company sets the lowest level possible (I would say this actually needs modifying, but here for comparison), but quite a few of the other Lists of ships have equivalent information. This (and they) have more data than "mere vessels names and types" - certainly enough to meet the minimum quality standards. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:04, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As an example the fleet list at Royal Mail Steam Packet Company, for a long time, had less information than the COSCO list, I've been slowly filling it out as and when the urge takes me. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 10:40, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 13:55, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 20:51, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - re my earlier comments, I think the only functional argument is notability. Now this would seem to either require a significant amount of sources each covering some ships to "manually" put the list together, or a significant overall list. Clearly the latter is easy to find as OR, but rarer to come across as a sufficient and suitable secondary source. Now I wouldn't go delete since i've only done a fraction of a suitable WP:BEFORE because obviously there are so many news [Ed.] articles on COSCO. It's just getting the list notability that's the issue. If it can be done, by @Murgatroyd49: or otherwise then I'd be very glad to be a strong keep. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:17, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Simply only a handful of those ships have articles and even then the notability of those vessels isn't guaranteed. And I don't see the encyclopedic value in naming every single unit in a company's fleet roster. Ajf773 (talk) 22:18, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clarified my point, by articles I really mean news articles/sources. Obviously only a small number of the ships will have articles/be individually notable. However even my brief look round gave articles on quite a few of the ships. As components in a list they aren't required to meet article-level notability. The list certainly seems beneficial and doesn't seem to breach WP:NOT. Nosebagbear (talk) 22:47, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 04:13, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:LISTN, WP:GNG, and WP:NOT. No independent reliable source discusses these ships as a group. This is an indiscriminate list of non-encyclopedic material, similar to a published list of staff at a university, such as Solent University. Such lists are of limited interest to the general public. If the COSCO fleet lists were of general public interest, we would expect several independent reliable sources to discuss them as a group. This list relies on COSCO's own website, a primary source. SilkTork (talk) 22:51, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Are the company websites primary sources? The primary source for this data is the company's offical records and the various Maritime registries, the website information is derived from those records so is a secondary source. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 08:45, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they are primary sources. The company can publish the information in various ways, each way, be it book, film, or webpage, is a primary source because it is the company themselves who are publishing the information. A secondary source is a source independent of the company - not related to the company in any way (not paid or commissioned by the company, not working for the company, not a different branch of the company, etc). Completely separate. We can use primary sources for factual information, but we depend on secondary sources for notability. SilkTork (talk) 20:58, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Which is basically what I did, used the the company lists to get the ship names, often having to unscramble the Chinese-English translations, and checked the details with marinetraffic and other similar websites. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 08:24, 29 May 2018 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/COSCO_fleet_lists&oldid=852045793"