Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brigantine Yankee

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 Keep. Yes, I know the discussion was only open for two hours, but eight valid "keep"s in only two hours is a lot, so I don't think that I'm applying WP:SNOW out of haste (especially since the article was improved during the discussion). Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 23:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Brigantine Yankee

Brigantine Yankee (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

unencyclopedic Ra2007 (talk) 21:31, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep -- we have 1000s of articles about notable historic ships. Take a look at the Irving Johnson article -- it includes numerous books and National Geographic articles about Johnson's travels in this sailing ship. --A. B. (talk) 22:06, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletions. -- A. B. (talk) 22:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep The article is new, one month old, and should be worked up. It has book references. It is a notable last of line. Link to Irving Johnson page.ClemRutter (talk) 22:13, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep This ship is notable for being captured during WWI and especially for its subsequent well-documented travels with the Johnsons. Maralia (talk) 22:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, especially after Woody (talk · contribs)'s excellent cleanup and wikification. TomTheHand (talk) 22:27, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Excellent is a wee bit much, I did what I can for now. It piqued my interest. :) Woody (talk) 22:41, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, I gave it a quick copyedit, WP:MOS fixes and a better hook in the WP:LEAD. I disagree with the nominator that it is unencyclopedic. I believe it conforms to the relevant guidelines as it is notable, as is shown by the plentiful sources. Woody (talk) 22:41, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Per A.B. Clearly encyclopedic. - Cyborg Ninja (talk) 22:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, clearly notable; featured in Captain Villers' National Geographic book "Men, Ships and the Sea". Kablammo (talk) 22:43, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Obviously "encyclopedic". Nick mallory (talk) 23:06, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
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.