Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SS Conte Rosso Sinking

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 Delete. I think this would have been closed sooner if the creator of the page wasn't as vocal as he was. But even so, this is a clear case of something to be deleted. -- Balloonman (talk) 22:14, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] SS Conte Rosso Sinking

SS Conte Rosso Sinking (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Page created exclusively to place the editor's father's account of the sinking (not WP:RS) into wiki after it had been removed from the main article Mayalld 22:33, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think using a computer program to monitor and edit this is fair or even handed ----

Please explain your qualification to edit this page, what evidence do you have to say this is not accurate or sourced correctly?

My qualification is that I have read and understood Wikipedia's policies on verifiability and reliable sources, and can see that this does not comply. Mayalld 07:25, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I think you are biased and don't care for the truth. Since when is personal testimony not a valid resource and reference? I think you are against the spirit of Wiki by applying technical consideriations over truth and human experience. You promote the impression that you insult the memory of the men and women who gave their lives in war time. And this is Rememberance Day, or veterans day. It seems edit for the sake of editing and deleting content that you don't know anything about. Do you have any experience about the SS Conte Rosso? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gianniconterosso (talk • contribs) 22:49, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Not so. Wikipedia has a very firm policy that unverifiable material doesn't belong in Wikipedia. That isn't to insult your father, it is just saying that Wikipedia must only contain material that anybody can verify. If your father's account was recorded (for example in the transcript of a board of enquiry), then you could cite the board of inquiry, and introduce the material, but otherwise, it is just hearsay.Mayalld 07:25, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete I am sorry. and in fact can understand the wish to memorialize what happened. However, this is second hand information and in fact no more than hearsay. In situations like this, Wikipedia policy is clear. Delete. Shoessss |  Chat  22:57, 11 November 2007 (UTC)


You are arrogantly saying it is hearsay. Where is the actual text where that says this policy? show me please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gianniconterosso (talk • contribs) 23:00, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

hearsay is evidence based on the reports of others rather than on personal knowledge; normally inadmissible because not made under oath. Hope this explains. Shoessss |  Chat  23:19, 11 November 2007 (UTC)


  • Delete. According to our longstanding policies, this article fails verification and reliable sourcing. We regret that this personal account is not something we can publish here. --Dhartung | Talk 23:07, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

But I have verifiable and reliable sources. Is that not OK? What is your definition of Reliable Source and Verification?



None of you have answered my specific and exact questions. You are are only responding with a cultural view of values. Policy based on interpretation. Where is the exact line of text that defines Verification, Sourcing?

Here you go talk • contribs just follow the link [1]. Shoessss |  Chat  23:23, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment The line of text that defines verification is "any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source" (taken from first paragraph of WP:V). Has your father had his account published? Can I check to see if he really said it? If not then it cannot be verified. Bobby1011 23:27, 11 November 2007 (UTC)


In answer to booby1011, Yes I have previously published materials. People can verify it. However it's not online at this moment. If you wikibots want to check maybe you'll have to wait. Is that enough to stay the execution of the delete page order? Or how long do it need to be placed online before the automatic wikibot rush to deletion? What if I put in some references? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.151.101.243 (talk) 23:41, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

It need not be online. You can cite news, books, encyclopaedias, etc. but give us sources to pass WP:V. Bobby1011 23:44, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

How's the list of references now? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gianniconterosso (talk • contribs) 23:54, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment Well Gianniconterosso, have a think about it. Can I check any of those references? Bobby1011 23:58, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete in the absence of sources compliant with policy, and per nom and Bobby1011. If the account had been published - maybe in a newspaper article or some such place - then an article about the sinking might be possible. ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 00:07, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


You can check them if you do the research. Just go to the naval history department in the Arsenal in Venice Italy, or look at the pension or discharge papers the next time you visit Napoli. However I've done some "fact" checking already. I've got some documents but scanning and uploading will take some time. Previous question still applies.. how long till autowikibots rule and delete this world without online references? (Every time I open this page this browser logs me out- stupid safari and windows xp... Gianni 00:16, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Don't scan and upload images as references. That is not how an article is referenced. You have to find published sources and tell us where to find them. The sources that you have listed as references need to be given in a proper fashion. That means including all of the details we would need to check them. The article is also begining to look like a coatrack for your fathers biography. If he is really as notable as you say he is (mainly being knighted), then perhaps you should consider creating an article about him. Papers that are in his possession (or yours or any of his suriving relatives) are not available for users to check them. In any case any such papaers are considered questionable sources because discharge papers and pension papers are not known for their strick fact checking. Also, there is no reason to list pending sources. Bobby1011 00:56, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
I've skipped over the statements above, but my first glance skim-through is that it's highly unsourced and apparent original research. If it is found that it should be kept (or that any portions thereof should be maintained), it should either be renamed as something along the lines of "The sinking of the SS Conte Rosso" or be merged into the main SS Conte Rosso article. --Bossi (talk • gallery • contrib) 01:07, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Sorry, but posting on Wikipedia is a privilege, not a right. If there were a publication (newspaper, magazine, book) containing the text of an interview with Vittorio Raineri, then that could be part of an article. However, original research (ricerche originali) is not acceptable on Wikipedia in any language. From [[2]]:

"Wikipedia non è il posto adatto per pubblicare ricerche originali (come, ad esempio, teorie ed idee formulate ex novo, o punti di vista/fatti sostenuti da una minoranza limitata o estremamente piccola), Wikipedia, infatti, non è una fonte primaria." Wikipedia is not the place to publish original research, for example, new theories and ideas, or viewpoints or factual statements supported by, or known by, an extremely small number of people. Wikipedia is not a primary source. With all respect to the memory of Mr. Raineri and his service in the military, the details that he recounted to you cannot be published for the first time on Wikipedia if they have not been published somewhere else. Mandsford 02:33, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Strong Delete for being an unverifiable article about something that may have been broadly similar to an event portrayed in the cinema about another ship sinking. There is already an article on the ship itself, so if any verifiable details (that is, checkable by third-party published sources) are to be added then, surely, they should be incorporated in to that main article? Eddie.willers 03:43, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

'Neutral'-In fact, i felt that the incident should be merged with a page with the ship's name or merge altogether but i knew that that would roar into another battle and i suggests that more formatting should be done to make the page more professional if the result was to BE KEEP.However, more references and eyewitness accounts should be placed into references and they must be verifiable.--Quek157 06:21, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

    • Comment This article was forked from the main article, after the non-verifiable content was repeatedly removed from it, presumably in an attempt to get the unverifiable material "under the wire" Mayalld 07:14, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete -- I just substantially expanded the main SS Conte Rosso article, including material on the sinking. I don't think we need two SS Conte Rosso stories. The material in the current SS Conte Rosso Sinking article is not encyclopedic. --A. B. (talk) 07:03, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete The main article on the ship is sufficient. Alberon 10:27, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete-(changed from neutral)After reading the past few comments, i felt that the page should be deleted as there are not much research done and the main page offers enough data.--Quek157 13:41, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete per nom. BTW a comment on hearsay: please don't use anglo-american court rules here, this is not an anglo-american court. Greswik 21:01, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
It is not anglo-american court rules I am quoting. Rather it is a Definition taken word for word from Wikitionary[3]. Hope this helps. Shoessss |  Chat  21:44, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Now you say you have quoted the (law) meaning, and then you appear to have quoted an anglo-american court rule, retrieved thru Wictionary. So it unfortunately shows you bring an anglo-american court rule with the "normally inadmissible because not made under oath" . I hope you know other countries may not have this rule. I also hope you noticed my !vote was for deletion. My point was just the seven words I quoted above was a strange element in the thread. Greswik 22:29, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Whoa Greswik, first of all easy does it, you are taking this way to serious. Second, the reason I placed the definition of the word heresy under my original deletion comments was because Gianniconterossotalk questioned my use of the word heresy. I was just pointing out the statements that were made,in the article, needed to be verifiable. The use of this English word, in this context, has nothing to do with law or any court system. It is just ONE word that sums up, “….you need verification!.”. Nothing more and nothing less. Hope this clears up the matter. Shoessss |  Chat  11:46, 16 November 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.