French ship Gapeau (B284): The other source, netmarine.net, is more of a large hobby site / semi wiki than anything else ("Si vous souhaitez compléter ces pages par des récits, illustrations ou autres documents, écrivez nous.").  Fram ( talk ) 07:39, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military , Transportation , France ,  and Germany .  Fram ( talk ) 07:39, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  We have always kept commissioned naval vessels.  -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 08:55, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] No, we haven't, and is in any case not a reason to keep things.  "We keep because we always keep" is ignoring things like Wp:CCC and the stricter standards we have for establishing notability instead of assuming some inherent notability across many topics.  Fram ( talk ) 09:07, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] You tried the exact same argument at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/USS LSM-316 , Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/USS LSM-422 and the like, which ended in redirection, with the closing admin noting the particular weakness of your argument.  Fram ( talk ) 09:18, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] So you discount my argument because you disagree with precedent but then cite a closer's remarks (which did not refer to my argument specifically, incidentally) as some sort of precedent?  You've got to laugh!  But, other than those numbered vessels, which are all pretty much the same, and some static accommodation barges, would you like to cite the AfDs where commissioned military vessels were deleted.  Just so we know.  -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 10:10, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] We have if they got more than routine coverage.  A fishing vessel pressed into navy service isn't the HMS Ark Royal or USS Missouri, so it won't have that level of coverage.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:58, 19 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : Reading the article for 2 seconds shows that it was requisitioned for service as a military ship during World War II, so stating fishing ship / unarmed transport ship , is technically correct but is a misleading strawman.  I'm not arguing for or against deletion because I don't know if there is a separate method for assessing the notability of ships, but that statement just irked me.  Curbon7 ( talk ) 09:12, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I meant "unarmed military transport ship", otherwise my addition of "unarmed" would make little sense, but I agree that not including "military" was involuntarily misleading.  I've added it now, I hope that's better?  Fram ( talk ) 09:18, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Much appreciated Curbon7 ( talk ) 09:21, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep The vessel served with two navies and two commercial fishers.  Although unarmed in French Navy service, she was definitely armed in Kriegsmarine service.  If Netmarine is objected to, I can add from Janes All the World's Ships , which most definitely passes WP:RS.  Mjroots ( talk ) 10:14, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Lloyd's Register is also a reliable source .  Mjroots ( talk ) 19:42, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] That Lloyd's mention is reliable, but it doesn't contribute to the topic's notability.  See WP:SIGCOV .  I'm familiar with Janes' usual entries, and while they're also reliable I'm not sure that will meet the SIGCOV bar either.  Ed [talk] [OMT] 03:31, 13 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Mjroots and longstanding practice.  Kablammo ( talk ) 15:52, 12 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to List of Vorpostenboote in World War II .  I'm not concerned with the scope of Gröner's work, but I am interested in its depth of coverage.  From the article's content, I'm guessing it does check that WP:SIGCOV box (in addition to all the other points at WP:GNG ).  Unfortunately, that's only one source, and Lloyd's table doesn't reach that bar.  If there's a typical entry in Jane's Fighting Ships , I'm guessing that wouldn't either.  As a result, I think this topic can be covered in the main Vorpostenboote list, or if needed that list could be split.  (Per GNG footnote 4 : "Lack of multiple sources suggests that the topic may be more suitable for inclusion in an article on a broader topic.")  Ed [talk] [OMT] 03:31, 13 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  07:47, 19 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Non-notable boat/fishing trawler/transport.  Wasn't involved in any heroic anti-submarine battle or any notable rescue at sea that would garner coverage.  What's used for coverage is routine ship registry listings, tracing the vessel's career until being scrapped.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:57, 19 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak Keep - Added a little more history from an additional source.  - Davidships ( talk ) 14:31, 20 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Owen× ☎ 17:21, 27 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, The Herald (Benison) ( talk ) 05:23, 5 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: A "no consensus, leaning keep" closure was overturned per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 May 9 Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, * Pppery * it has begun... 17:39, 19 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Unless actual WP:SIGCOV can be presented from sources (and at this point, I will need the actual text from the references copy-pasted here to prove it since they're inaccessible), then there isn't notability being shown for this article subject.  And it's already well known that sources like Lloyd's Register are not significant coverage and just list basic info for all military ships that have existed period.  The Dictionary of French Warships seems no better.  In fact, all the sources used in the article seem very underwhelming on actual significant coverage (and is Netmarine.net even a reliable source?).  The closer should disregard any Keep votes above claiming "we always keep them", as this isn't an actual notability argument.  It's the same sort of nonsense that was done with sports biographies previously and we finally forced that group to follow WP:GNG requirements.  We are long past time to force the same requirements on the walled garden that Ships wikiproject editors have been constructing.  Silver seren C 18:03, 19 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep 84.142.24.48 ( talk ) 16:03, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep As notable as many other ships with similar references.  Until such time as the guideline for which ships are sufficiently notable for their own article is debated at a more visible venue the article should be kept Lyndaship ( talk ) 16:58, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Then you should showcase how it's notable by presenting significant coverage in reliable sources.  Otherwise, WP:ITSNOTABLE is explicitly one of the arguments to avoid .  Silver seren C 00:23, 21 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Lyndaship and Silver seren : I intend to open a discussion at WT:MILHIST on the subject of auxiliary warships such as these once this discussion is closed.  Mjroots ( talk ) 09:33, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to List of Vorpostenboote in World War II per Ed .  Claims we commonly do something require linked support from guidelines and policy.  I agree this is a close call; we can verify the subject, we are just stuck on direct detailing in multiple reliable sources independent of the topic.  We don't have sufficient citations in this case.  I suspect they will one day be found.   As an alternative to deletion, we might redirect the page until sources can be applied.  Redirects are cheap, and remove nothing from page history.  BusterD ( talk ) 21:35, 23 May 2024 (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.

Discussion outcome: no consensus