Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grand Staircase of the Titanic

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 No consensus to delete, merge or keep. Therefore is kept by default JodyB talk 23:51, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Grand Staircase of the Titanic

Grand Staircase of the Titanic (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Unimportant staircase. Only "notable" due to its appearance in movies about the Titanic. --- RockMFR 01:47, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep. I disagree with the nominator. All main areas (and probably some minor areas) of the Titanic are inherently notable. The article could use some cleanup and rewriting, but the staircase is notable for being a part of the unsinkable sunken ship. The sources listed in the article confirm that explorers of the Titanic and scholars who study the Titanic have covered the subject of the staircase in multiple reliable publications. ≈≈Carolfrog≈≈♦тос♦ 02:18, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
  • DeleteMerge to RMS Titanic - Sorry, but connection with a notable subject does not make something inherently notable. It has to be notable in its own right. --Hnsampat 02:32, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep. I can't believe I'm in favour of an article for a staircase, but this is a fine one and appears notable on its own. --Stormbay 03:36, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Firm delete, the staircase is not independently notable, as fine a staircase as it may have been. For an historical artifact or architectural structure, these are extremely weak sources, and two really border on WP:SYN in that the importance is asserted by our article and not our source. I could see an extensive and sourced article on all the ship's notable architecture, but the importance of the staircase is as the nominator states a construct of the James Cameron film Titanic. --Dhartung | Talk 04:17, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete or partially merge into Titanic. It's a staircase. Even though it's one of the most notable/remembered parts of the ship, I believe that the Titanic article should have enough insight into it. --Jacques Pirat Talk 04:38, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - I don't believe it's anywhere notable enough. The information should be cut down and put into the titanic article. Staircase on the titanic or not, it's still just a staircase! Wikidudeman (talk) 04:39, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep The grand staircase is notable in its own right. CraigMonroe 16:41, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
    • I think you need to elaborate on that. Morgan Wick 17:03, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
      • I explained my rational--nothing more is needed. If you don't agree with it, fine. However, since you seem to want more information why, the Grand Staircase is considered by many scholars to be one of the prime examples of design of the gilded age. It was renowned in its time, and is still renowned today. Just because it was in a ship does not meen it is non-notable. CraigMonroe 14:08, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete: C'mon. It's a staircase; what is the basis for proclaiming it notable above and beyond the ship? Yeah, yeah, we've all seen Leo and Kate lounging on a replica in a movie ... and that fictional movie is the source of the image in the article. On that basis, let's create a Front Doorway of Tara article. There is nothing here that cannot be merged into the main article.  RGTraynor  18:01, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Notability is not inherited. Should we have Shuffle board courts of the Titanic article too how about deck chairs. --Daniel J. Leivick 18:51, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge with the main Titanic article after cutting out a great deal of trivia and original research. There is no good reason to spew out a multitude of articles about every microscopic aspect of an encyclopedic subject, when all that needs to be said would fit into a paragraph in the main article. The sources are of less than reliable and independent quality. It can be verified that there was such a staircase, but outside the movie it does not seem to have been all that important. Ballard also found that the Captain's bathtub is still down there, with hot, cold and saltwater taps, but it does not need an encyclopedia article either. Edison 23:15, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete (merge what is useful). Bucketsofg 23:19, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge and Redirect to the article on the ship. I tried to save this article by adding sources, since the original was a load of urban legends and fiction that someone had taken out of that odious Cameron movie and assumed were factual. The problem is that only in the movies was "the staircase" (in reality, two almost-identical staircases) considered that unusual. Hundreds of staircases throughout the Western World and on dozens of ocean liners were just as ornate. The reason it's considered even marginally notable is because other staircases of its type have mainly been destroyed or renovated, and because it was so ornate that numerous filmmakers have used it as a symbol of the Gilded Age. As a staircase, though, I'm still not convinced it was that notable. --Charlene 04:56, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Is some huge catastrophe going to befall Wikipedia and the world if we do? Atraxus 20:31, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: Do you have any grounds to Keep you'd like to advocate?  RGTraynor  01:19, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Response: Can you answer my question? Atraxus 19:01, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
I would be happy to answer your question. Don't worry a huge catastrophe would not befall Wikipedia if it is kept. However unencyclopedic articles lower the overall quality of the project. The problem with your argument is that it gets made all the time, if every time some one came along and said "what harm does my article on my schools bathroom do?" we kept the article the encyclopedia would quickly be filled with articles on marginal topics. We have to draw the line somewhere and the community seems to feel that this subject does not pass the bar. --Daniel J. Leivick 19:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
I would be happy to answer any pertinant questions. I rather doubt, for instance, that some huge catastrophe would befall either Wikipedia or the world were your user page replaced with obscenity-laden exhortations to defile schoolchildren, but that would likewise be against Wikipedia policy. I see that you've made less than a half-dozen mainspace edits, so you might be unfamiliar with such policies, and recommend you review WP:NOT, WP:AFD and WP:NN.  RGTraynor  20:18, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
If you think an article is of poor quality or bringing Wikipedia into disrepute then I can understand its removal. But not just removing articles that you personally don't see the point to which is what this discussion comes down to in the end (I don't care how many policy pages you direct me to... that IS what it comes down). And the "if we let this one get away then the whole thing will be over run with them before long" argument is just hysteria. If you think it brings the website into disrepute then by all means appeal to get rid of it. But if you don't agree with it then don't look at it or make a counter argument. Don't just start ranting about how it should be taken down. Sheesh, I thought we'd left these Internet content arguments back in 1999 Atraxus 20:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Now that some discussion has taken place in response to your question, could you perhaps please provide some reason why this page should be kept? --Hnsampat 21:36, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Fine. This deserves to stay because it covers one of the most unique elements of the ship. Unlike the engines, funnels or propellers which can be discussed in depth generically in pages for ship building or ships, the staircase is a feature which is unique amongst features of the RMS Titanic and staircases in general. I therefore put forward the case that it deserves its own article. Happy now? Atraxus 22:38, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for explaining. I, however, must disagree for all of the reasons that have been laid out above. --Hnsampat 02:43, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Well what are they exactly? From what I can see it's just a load of people stating that it's non-notable and not being challenged versus a load of people saying it is notable and being asked to elaborate. Maybe you could elaborate on the reasons for non-notability beyond simply stating that it is "non-notable" as most of the deleters seem to have done. And I'm aware where I can find the guidelines for notability so don't simply post a link there. I want to see someone explain exactly why it is not notable with reference to the guidelines rather than simply state "non-notable" and expect that is good enough while at the same time saying that simply stating "notable" with no explanation isn't good enough. Atraxus 18:20, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Very well. The Grand Staircase of the Titanic is non-notable because it has not had "significant coverage" in multiple reliable sources. Sure, it has been mentioned in a few sources as part of a larger discussion of the features of the Titanic (as cited on the page), but it has not been covered extensively. Put another way, the Grand Staircase is not notable in its own right, one of the key requirements for an article to exist about a subject. Hence, while it is proper to include a detailed description of the Grand Staircase in a larger article about the Titanic, it is not proper to have an article strictly devoted to the Grand Staircase. --Hnsampat 23:56, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Well with that attitude Wikipedia would just be regurgitating information that is already out there and the whole thing would have little or no encyclopaedic value at all. Using the argument that you don't like the way it is sourced is just an easy way to go around dismissing articles you don't like Atraxus 10:29, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Please assume good faith on my part. It's not that I don't like the article. It's that it is "unencyclopedic" as defined by various Wikipedia policies. It does not help anyone here if you simply presume that those who argue for deletion here are doing so only because they don't like the article and just dismiss their arguments accordingly. I could easily say that you're basing your arguments on the fact that you do like the article and that therefore we should ignore you, but that would not help anyone, would it? --Hnsampat 18:39, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
I keep saying that because I keep pointing out that most, if not all, of the arguments for deletion seem to be based in blind faith rather than good faith. I've still not seen any evidence that I haven't already dispatched that the article is 'unencyclopedic'. I'm also noticing that the pro-deleters are switching between 'non-natble', 'unencyclopedia' or 'unreferenced' as to why it should be deleted which doesn't look particularly consistant in terms of having an argument Atraxus 13:18, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep - The Titanic is most certainly notable, and anyone familiar with it's history will know that the grand staircase was one of it's main features. I find the comment about deck chairs offensive and ignorant as this was a centrepiece of the grandest ship to sail the seas at the time, made all the more notable by it's fate. Irishjp 14:35, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Please do not take offense at my comments, also before you go around labeling people as ignorant you might want to learn a little about Wikipedia yourself, reading up on policies like WP:NPA for a start. To clarify my point I was trying to emphasize why notability is not inherited. If being a piece of something notable grants notability then we should probably have articles like John Edwards hair it has received some specific attention from reliable sources, but it is always in connection with John Edwards, just as this staircase is unlikely to receive attention outside of the Titanic context. --Daniel J. Leivick 17:57, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
WHAT?! There's no article on John Edwards hair?! >:( Atraxus 15:59, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
  • If the staircase wasn't noteable on its own how come if you ask most people about the titanic, they'll most likely mention this particular feature?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.36.182.217 (talk • contribs) 01:02, 8 July 2007 (UTC).
    • That's a rather broad generalization, isn't it? I've talked about the Titanic with many people and the subject of the Grand Staircase has never come up. (What usually does come up are things like how it was supposedly unsinkable and yet sank anyway, icebergs, lifeboats, and how an award-winning movie was made from the ship.) --Hnsampat 01:39, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
An award winning movie in which thousands of pounds were spent accurately recreating a totally non-notable and irrelevant staircase, eh? Atraxus 13:18, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Using that logic, one could argue that Spire of the Empire State Building deserves to be its own article, since it was accurately recreated in not one but two highly acclaimed films (i.e. the original King Kong and its 2005 remake). However, clearly we would say that any information about the spire of the Empire State Building should be part of the Empire State Building article, not its own separate article. Likewise, nobody is saying that the Grand Staircase of the Titanic is "totally irrelevant and non-notable." The arguments for deletion here are that the staircase is not notable enough to have its own article. --Hnsampat 14:34, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't know much about the Empire State Building or its spire but it's not out of the question that it could have its own article. And that's a totally shallow understanding of the example I was making too. Atraxus 15:44, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - I work at an exhibit about the Titanic, right now, and it's definitely not indepedantly notable. --Haemo 01:03, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, seems notable. Everyking 09:06, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep seems to be a good example of fantastic archeticture --Brent Ward 13:33, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep if it was a feature on the titanic, it is the titanic; the titanic wasn't just an engine, it was all of its features too; and as this is one of its most noteable features i think it should be kept --Hadseys 13:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
    • I must disagree here. First, being a feature of the Titanic does not automatically make it notable, because then even the most minute of objects on the ship would be considered notable. Now, I do agree that this is a somewhat more notable feature than many others, but I do not believe that it is notable enough to have its own article. Just because it's a "good example of fantastic architecture" doesn't mean it's notable enough to have its own article. A discussion of the grand staircase is appropriate as part of a discussion of the features of the Titanic (and I notice that that section is rather short on the Titanic page), but it should not be a separate article. --Hnsampat 11:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge into RMS Titanic Will (talk) 15:31, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
    • I agree. The information is probably worth keeping, just not in an article of its own. So, I'm changing my vote to Merge. --Hnsampat 15:51, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
      • Question Does this staircase represent a particular achievement in the world of architecture? If not, merge.--Ispy1981 15:59, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge any relevant and notable information (which is unlikely, I think) to Titanic Giggy UCP 22:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge into main article. It's clear from the article that the staircase itself hasn't been the subject of works, but has been considered as an interesting part of the ship as a whole. Take away the obvious notability of the ship itself, there's no indication that this particular staircase is or was of particular note beyond its oppulence. Finally, the article only mentions the notability of the staircase as being a featured setpiece in movies made about the ship. Merge the useful information here into the main article, which could use a little more meat in the "Fixtures and fittings" subhead. — Scientizzle 22:25, 10 July 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.