Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/History of Full Rigged Ships

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 Redirected to full rigged ship. Merge at will. Pastordavid (talk) 13:49, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

History of Full Rigged Ships[edit]

Inaccurate personal essay, wrong in many places, doesn't even stick to the topic of the title. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 08:06, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I don't know much about the history, but it certainly has a weird layout. Gatoclass (talk) 09:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - creator notified. I'm also not sure that many of your reasons are good arguments for deletion. Inaccuracies, tone problems and meandering topic issues can be fixed with rewrites and edits, and from looking at the history the article has been steadily improving from its inception. I'd agree there are issues, the scope could be tightened, the layout altered, etc but is deleting the whole thing the way to go? There's a lot of good factual material here and I don't think it would take much to sort out the issues. Benea (talk) 10:15, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a solution would be to merge with the Age of sail article, and lose any unsourced, inaccurate and personal essay elements? Benea (talk) 10:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to full rigged ship, which could reasonably be expanded with a History section. Much of the article in question has overlap with ship type articles that we already have, so could be jettisoned without loss. If you get rid of the duplicative stuff there isn't a whole lot left. --Dhartung | Talk 10:33, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – setting aside all other concerns, the title of the article should be History of full-rigged ships — Bellhalla (talk) 12:09, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: to Age of Sail article. While Benea has a good point about deletion grounds, the problem with this article is that beyond gaffes such as unsourced neologisms like "Great Tall Ships," the creator made an astonishing error given the seeming quality of the article: calling schooner rigged ships (inaccurately) "full-rigged." As this article is a history of schooners, it is unsalvageable under the current name. RGTraynor 14:04, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to full rigged ship, per above. Well-written, well-researched, full of content, and it simply needs to conform to the Wikipedia style of writing. The full-rigged ship article could accomodate the merger. Mandsford (talk) 14:51, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Especially if it talked about full-rigged ships at all. Which, in fact, it doesn't. RGTraynor 16:00, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And that it doesn't even get what it does talk about right in many cases. For instance, in the "Five masted schooners" section (the part I came to this article looking at, because I'd just been improving our article on the Governor Ames, the first five-masted schooner) it confuses things mightily. The David Dows was not a schooner but a barquentine (even though it appears to have often been called a schooner), and the article has its build date wrong as well. It then appears to say that the Inca was the next one and the Ames followed a year later. This is wholly wrong as well; the Ames preceded the Inca by eight years, and the Ames' build date was actually that quoted for the David Dows. Based on this, my personal opinion is that it is likely there is little salvageable in this article; it's haphazard, confusing, wrong in many cases, and while some individual facts in it are sourced, overall it contributes little to the encyclopedia. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:16, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Mandsford. Stifle (talk) 15:27, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 19:13, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, per all above. victor falk 13:35, 23 April 2008 (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.