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 merge to List of patrol vessels of the United States Navy. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 12:45, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

USS Politesse (SP-662)[edit]

USS Politesse (SP-662) (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 is an article on a 30' long US Navy patrol boat that did nothing remarkable, was captained by no one remarkable, and to which nothing remarkable appears to have ever happened. No one died on board, the boat was not hit by any torpedoes, no peace treaties were signed on its deck. As near as I can tell, the only remarkable thing about it is that there is a Wikipedia article on it. I understand that there is a kind of knee-jerk response that says, "If it was a US Navy vessel, it warrants a Wikipedia article." But the logic of that has reached the level of absurdity if we are going to host articles on every piece of wood or metal that the US Navy ever made float. A loose noose (talk) 21:33, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that the boat was small and may not have a particularly exciting career is not in itself a reason for deletion - there is some coverage in reliable sources (i.e. DANFS here) although whether there is enough to justify a standalone article is a different question.Nigel Ish (talk) 22:03, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I had a quick look at that, Nigel, and it looks like it is an archival catalogue entry— yes, it does say some basic things about the boat, but the database it comes from looks like covers every boat in the US Navy, without discrimination. We have pretty clear rules with regards to the kind of coverage that a living person has to have before qualifying for a Wikipedia article, it's hard of fathom (get it?) that the rules for a patrol boat with a non-history like this one's should be so much more generous! A loose noose (talk) 23:51, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to List of patrol vessels of the United States Navy (which doesn't currently list this vessel [and probably needs to be split up, but that's beside the point]). I see no claim of notability (and DANFS is arguably not independent of the subject, so I doubt that'd count toward the GNG). Parsecboy (talk) 22:16, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, added to USN patrol vessel list. The fundamental dilemma is we should either have articles for just about every vessel of this sort (WWI ID and SP designations), or limit the vast majority of them to a list entry. There are several hundred of these vessels. RobDuch (talk) 23:12, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the paucity of sources on these vessels means they will permanently be stubs, then I think we have an answer on that question (and whether they pass GNG). Parsecboy (talk) 23:25, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • That certainly seems consistent with existing Wikipedia policy. We might also want to consider that no other existing Wikipedia article other than a few list articles even mentions the craft. Maybe this is partly because there is simply nothing to be said about it. A loose noose (talk) 23:59, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep I don't think the prospect of the vessel remaining a stub for a long time is a good enough reason to delete or redirect. Many, many ship related articles have been stubs for months or even years before being expanded.--White Shadows ^{Let’s Talk} 01:54, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • But what if there doesn't appear to be anything with which to expand it, nor any prospect of anything in the future? A redirect would leave the possibility of an article being created IF somehow something does come up someday, but right now no one seems to be able to find anything to show that this vessel is notable in a meaningful sense. A loose noose (talk) 02:08, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• This is of course true, but I'm fearful of any precedents that may be set if we delete or redirect an article simply because it is a stub.--White Shadows ^{Let’s Talk} 02:25, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• To be clear, I'm not advocating deleting the article because it's a stub. I'm saying it ought to be deleted/redirected because it will permanently be a stub, because there is no significant coverage in reliable sources that we can use to develop anything more than the handful of lines from DANFS. Put another way, the article does not pass WP:GNG. There are plenty of stubs (and indeed currently non-existent articles) on notable topics that simply haven't been improved yet because no one has gotten around to them. That is not the case here. Parsecboy (talk) 12:18, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Good point. I've struck out my vote.--White Shadows ^{Let’s Talk} 14:52, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge into list article per some views of Nigel Ish. Buckshot06 (talk) 17:25, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge into a list article per Parsecboy and Nigel ish. This stub will never be expanded and would be suited to have the relevant info from it in a list article. JC7V-constructive zone 17:35, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge into a list article per Parsecboy and Nigel Ish. Llammakey (talk) 11:32, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge into a list article with regret - it simply isn't notable. I see many others like this in the list which have articles and should be treated likewise. It's a shame as I've never seen a commissioned ship not be notable before and now we will have some as black ie no link/article and people will wonder why Lyndaship (talk) 11:52, 30 August 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.