Deletion of SS Kiche Maru

Comment: to an article about the typhoon in question (give me a title and a few days and I'll start one). The article as it stands is already guilty of ; the claim that Kiche Maru = Kieko Maru = Kioko Maru = Kicker Maru rests on Wikipedians' assumption that all mentions of "steamships with one thousand passengers sinking" on that date are about the same vessel. But if you insist on accepting that there's one steamship "Kiche Maru" which sank on that date and that steamship carried 1,000 passengers (despite extremely flimsy evidence), you don't really have any grounds to deny there are two or three or four such steamships with really similar names, especially since it ''is'' well-verified that the extreme weather conditions on that date sank multiple ships
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)

Comment: 1)''' ''"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth"'' is the first line of the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy. It doesn't matter if the statement "The Kiche Maru was a Japanese steamship that sank" is true or not. What matters is that there is a reliable source that makes that statement. '''(2)''' The evidence so far for the alternate point of view ""There was no Japanese steamship called Kiche Maru, that sank" is |original research. It might be completely true (in the realist sense of the word) but if there isn't a reliable source for the statement or fact, it's original research. If a reliable source can be found that puts forward that view then it's no longer original research. '''(3)''' The statement "No evidence that a ship with the name SS Kiche Maru existed or sank" is demonstratably not true. There definitely is a question over whether there is any credible/reliable evidence though. '''(4)''' I think it comes down to this. Is the source provided (linked to at Google Books above) a |reliable source or not and is it sufficient (assuming no more can be found). Note that the article can be written to reflect all the relevant aspects, including that there is no evidence of it in the usual official maritime sources, that it's an often(?) used trivia question, and the confusion over it's name and date. Whether that can be done without making it too vague to be in an encyclopedia or not is a different story
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR||WP:V)