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 redirect to Catherine (ship). While it's true that the judgment of whether or not coverage is considered "significant" is indeed subjective, I think we can all generally agree that a few sentences ain't it. Consensus is that there is not sufficient significant coverage to establish notability of the ship. As there was not strong agreement on the target of the redirect, I'd invite anyone to change where the redirect is pointing. And of course, feel free to merge any verifiable content from this article into other articles, as appropriate. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 04:42, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Catherine (1793 ship) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article was redirected to Catherine (ship), but this was reverted and article creator prefers AfD discussion instead.

No evidence of notability, sources are primary or databases and article is a lot of WP:OR parsing of confusing elements in the primary sources. No indication in article or sources that this ship was any more notable than the many thousand similar ones in the slave ship database. Inikori has no info on this ship, Richardson[1] is the only secondary source with some further information, but it is rather minimal anyway and not sufficient to support a stand-alone article. Fram (talk) 09:52, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Transportation, and England. Fram (talk) 09:52, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Wikipedia suffers from a MAJOR WP:RECENTISM problem. This is an article about a historic ship. Per WP:WHYN: We require the existence of at least one secondary source so that the article can comply with Wikipedia:No original research's requirement that all articles be based on secondary sources. Richardson is an WP:RS and its entry of the Catherine (1793 ship) is WP:SIGCOV. Note that Richardson's writing relies on no less than nine sources! The relative (!) length of the entry, compare to other entries, speaks to the importance of the ship. The fact that this entry was published about two centuries after the ship's launch, along with yet another reference from 1996, speaks to the increased interest in the slave trade in recent decades. gidonb (talk) 01:08, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User below made one good point about WP:RECENTISM. Please follow wikt:recentism instead. The rest are mischaracterizations. Luckily, I can stand a little heat! gidonb (talk) 02:21, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• ((edit conflict)x2) Redirect to Catherine (ship). The above keep vote is based on some sort of bias towards older topics stemming from a fundamentally incorrect interpretation of what recentism is (Recentism is a phenomenon on Wikipedia where an article has an inflated or imbalanced focus on recent events.), a strange form of original research in asserting "one book has a six sentence long entry, therefore I have concluded there is massive scholarly interest in this non-notable ship", and an appeal to emotion in saying "but the slave trade!!!!" I am thoroughly unconvinced. This does not meet GNG and should be redirected or selectively merged to the set index article. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:49, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Richardson represents coverage in a reliable secondary source. There is no original research on my part. The original research is Richardson's; any confusion in the wording is my fault in trying to avoid quoting verbatim. What constitutes "significant" coverage is highly subjective. Richardson discusses her explicitly in two separate locations, in the first at some length, providing interesting information on the nature of manning problems and crew turnover. The information on the ambiguity in the number of captives is informative too; just because a datum is given to three significant digits does not meant that it is that accurate. Finally, Inikori is there to provide background. Unfortunately, he provides levels not rates, still, the levels provide some perspective. The relative importance of losses due to military action helps in understanding the risks and (implicitly) the profitability of enslaving in the run-up to the 1807 abolition of the trade.Acad Ronin (talk) 03:35, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect Having happened in history is not the same as "historic", which means "well-known or important in history." Having been briefly covered in a book as part of a directory of hundreds of ships doesn't make it well known or important. This publication appears to list every known ship of this Bristol era without distinguishing which were particularly important. I would support something like List of Empire ships (A) for these, but I don't see justification for stand-alone articles. Reywas92^Talk 04:43, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Keep in mind that Richardson covers voyages, and there is no reason in this context, to feature one voyage over another. That is up to the reader, depending on their interest: mortality rates among captives or crew, duration of voyages, outcomes (misadventure or capture), profitability, ownership and relations between owners, revolts among the captives, and possibly other interests I have not run across. Voyages per vessel, however, range between one to perhaps more than a dozen. What an article does is link the voyages, provide information about origins and fates when voyages do not encompass them, add in other roles that the vessel may have had (warship, whaler, or merchantman), and provide background and context. Acad Ronin (talk) 03:20, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Richardson devotes 2 paragraphs to the ship. At the very least, redirect to Catherine (ship). 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 11:28, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect I was coming here to save it, but not the most salubrious of histories. scope_creep^Talk 00:30, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  That is the very reason we need to keep the articles on the enslaving ships. That way readers can readily find out about the roles of the Liverpool, Bristol, and London in the trans-Atlantic enslaving trade, and the realities of the trade. Acad Ronin (talk) 03:26, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Please read WP:NOTMEMORIAL and WP:RGW and reconsider this stance, as it is contrary to the role of Wikipedia as a neutral resource which is based on secondary sources. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not your personal platform to mass-create non-notable ship stubs because you think it somehow informs people about the slave trade. We happen to have an articles such as Slave trade, Triangular trade, and Atlantic slave trade which cover this. If you think it's so important we know about certain cities, you could make artic... oh wait, there's already Bristol slave trade and Liverpool slave trade, both of which contain a thousand times more useful information than every single one of your ship stubs combined! It's almost like this is a pointless exercise on your part. Maybe contribute to those articles instead of just scraping databases. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:18, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The slave trade is part of history and, OBJECTIVELY, in recent decades receives increased attention. As an encyclopedia, we follow and reflect scholarship AT LARGE and should not hide histories because of the inconvenience that some readers may experience. gidonb (talk) 08:34, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • And the relevance of this comment for this WP:AFD is...? Reads like a WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS comment. Fram (talk) 08:43, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Au contraire, I suggest following scholarship wherever it may lead and however inconvenient for whatever party. Moving away from the touchy feel I'm inconvenienced so we cannot have this. (Same by the way with sources, it's my constant theme, many times over!) This is why OBJECTIVELY was in all caps. Next time, I will also make it bold ;-) gidonb (talk) 08:57, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No relevance then, just insinuating that people who want to delete or redirect this somehow are people who experience inconvenience at being reminded that slavery was a large, inhuman industry for England (and other countries). Nice way to post personal attacks in the guise of a comment. Really helpful. Fram (talk) 09:24, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Or maybe folks are sensitive to how other readers may perceive our articles. I do not know. I do know that, OBJECTIVELY, it has been suggested above that the topic of the slave trade is already "covered". Being sensitive to, for example, history and to how others may perceive articles certainly has its functions. I went through this in my early days on Wikipedia when I insisted and achieved that the Holocaust would be included in the history section of the Germany country article. It was not there and there were VERY STRONG resentment and edit-warring from the editors who controlled the article and demanded that it would stay out of the country article. Having feelings is human. Our sensitivity to these feelings though isn't how we should create or delete articles. We should follow science and the sources wherever they lead! If a slave ship meets the WP:GNG it should be kept, and if not it should be deleted. My call is extremely relevant for a sensitive topic! gidonb (talk) 10:01, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, having an article on this ship because it has two short (one very short even) sections in one local book is comparable to including the Holocaust in the Germany article. OBJECTIVELY I should add, to make it true. You believe this meets the GNG, I don't, perhaps we can leave it at that and don't try to present one side as the sensitive ones and the others as the inconvenienced ones? Such comments don't help in collaborating, most people don't like being painted as slavery-defending for bringing to AfD many non-notable ships, some of them slavers, others merchants or whalers (oh right, I'm probably inconvenienced by such articles as they are essential for the understanding of colonialism and climate change). Your posts are simply offensive. Fram (talk) 10:15, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You can also be defending the feelings of others or there may be absolutely no connection. I make only a general call for objectivity around these subjects. You are offended by your own incorrect frame of my comment. It's a choice you made. The source is solid and substantial and is based on nine earlier sources! gidonb (talk) 10:25, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps just refrain from speculating on the motives of others, it is very rarely a productive or positive contribution to make. And please, please, use "show preview" more often instead of making countless corrections to your posts every single time, it only creates annoying edit conflicts. Fram (talk) 10:32, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My call is for objectivity. I accept that frequent changes can be annoying. gidonb (talk) 10:38, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This argument collapses under the slightest scrutiny. You bring up the example of Germany not covering the Holocaust, which is clearly a blatant oversight that needed to be remedied. But that has zero relation to this ship stub. The correlation would be, do the articles on the cities and the U.K. cover the slave trade? And as I said above, there are entire articles dedicated to the slave trade in several cities, and the U.K. article says Britain played a leading part in the Atlantic slave trade, mainly between 1662 and 1807 when British or British-colonial Slave ships transported nearly 3.3 million slaves from Africa. You don't have a valid point, so you attack and cast aspersions towards other editors ("You are offended... it's a choice you made") and then coach it as "I want objectivity!" or "I am following the science!" Seemingly every AfD you participate in you cannot help but cast aspersions towards others. Either you implicitly accuse those with differing views of bias ("As an encyclopedia, we follow and reflect scholarship AT LARGE and should not hide histories because of the inconvenience that some readers may experience"), or explicitly accuse others of bias or malpractice. Examine your own behavior, instead, because it's part of why AfD is so toxic. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:35, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is the typical GidonB behaviour when when then the editor comments are put under scrutiny. It happens all the time. I don't know times in the last year have I seen this behaviour. scope_creep^Talk 18:39, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Friendly reminder that the topic is Catherine (1793 ship), not this or that user whose contributions are then chopped up and remixed to assign them positions they do not hold. gidonb (talk) 14:03, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The refs offer WP:SIGCOV. Desertarun (talk) 16:18, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  How about an actual argument, instead of copy-pasting the same messages on every AfD involving your friend's articles? Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:37, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I am copying this exactly from my comment just now at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Louisa (1798 ship), where there happens to have been less !voting so far, but the nomination is identical. My comment applies exactly here, too: I'm sorry, i see this as another in a series of AFDs that is appearing to be false or inappropriate in other ways. There's no actual intent to completely delete the article, is there? Rather the intent is to cause a merger, or at worst a redirect without moving over any material? Then this is not for AFD. And the deletion nominator has been schooled recently in other AFDs they opened or participated in about various lists of ships. "Article creator prefers AFD discussion over simple redirection" is not, i think, how Wikipedia is supposed to work. Talk page shows no discussion, no complaint or request about anything. wp:AFDISNOTFORCLEANUP. AFD is not for running roughshod. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 21:51, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. And I appreciate User:Gidonb's restrained replies to what appears to me to be incivility above. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 00:31, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. It reminds me of an old debate trick. You say blue. Another party would say: you have accused me of red and now you have insulted me. However, I only express my own opinions. I do not define others and others do not define me. Definitely not with chopped up quotes that assign me the opposite positions versus my own. If you argue, the entire page becomes about you, which defies my goal that we concentrate on the data. So best to let go. gidonb (talk) 03:24, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to concentrate on the data, then don't bring up what you believe others feel or may have as reason to vote one way or another. NIce attempt at WP:GASLIGHTING anyway. Fram (talk) 08:34, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Two new frames. Why not? Keep it coming! gidonb (talk) 23:36, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Another empty "Keep" vote by Doncram in a WP:HOUNDing spree. I hope the closing admin gives this the weight it deserves.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 11:04, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Suggestion instead of constant fighting over slave-ship stubs, how about a general article on Bristol as a key hub of the slave trade which could then accommodate a comprehensive list of Bristol ships and a summary of their voyages? Mccapra (talk) 13:07, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. Fram (talk) 13:26, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You mean Bristol slave trade? Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:17, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah great - it already exists. I managed not to find it this morning. So my suggestion is to add a table to this with details of some of the more notable ships, rather than having a separate stand-alone article in each one. Mccapra (talk) 23:43, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support for such tables but not instead of articles on individually notable ships. If these can better tie topics together, create overviews, and assist in navigation, that would be great! gidonb (talk) 23:49, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think a separate list article, List of British slave ships, might be a better way to display the information. We could also have List of French slave ships, etc. We already have List of slave ships, but I think this is too broad. Of course, we can also still have articles on the notable ships as well. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 08:18, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• At least Remove as a separate article -- Enormous amounts of research have bene done on the slave trade. This is incorporated in certain databases. I know they exist, but I have not studied them. However they are clearly a RS, being the result of academic research. There must have been 1000s of such ships. I do not think 99% of them will be individually notable enough to warrant its own article. We might have a series of list articles on voyages from London, Bristol, Liverpool, Lyme Regis, etc, probably broken down by decade. On the other hand, why should WP only do this for slave ships; why not East Indiamen; those trading to the Baltic, America, direct to West Indies, Russia, Spain, Levant, other Mediterranean ports; etc etc. Such a project could be undertaken, but the quantity of material will be colossal. We regularly delete articles on local churches and other topics because they are not separately notable; and the same principle should apply here. Today we regard the slave trade as reprehensible (and I agree). It was only in the second half of the 18th century, that anyone started questioning it, leading to a long campaign for abolition, first of the trade and then of slavery itself. Far too much commentary is looking at the past from a modern point of view, which is a back to front approach to history. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:06, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Most of the sources here, and on other slave ship articles, are primary. The second non-primary source (Inikori) does not appear to be specific to this ship. The Richardson book is "Printed for the Bristol Record Society, [Bristol, England]" so that is not entirely an independent source. (Does the "c/o Department of Historical Studies, Univ. of Bristol" mean that is the lending library? If so, that does not belong in the citation.) I am unable to find a digital copy of it to view the contents so I can't see what sources it makes use of. Searching on 'Catherine' in the HathiTrust versions of Richardson (searchable but not viewable) does give results but they could be a person rather than the ship. None of the page numbers that I find correspond to the ones listed here. My gut feeling is that these articles are Original Research based on primary sources and therefore do not merit WP articles. There already is a database of the slave ships, and it doesn't make sense for WP to repeat that information. Turning those data points into sentences is the very definition of OR. Lamona (talk) 04:22, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is a classic redirect. There is not enough in the source to to satisfy WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 18:36, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The claim that a publication from a historical society or university is not an independent source is really strange! Unless it writes PR about itself or its affiliates, or is from a (brutal) dictatorship, the publications of a regular research organization should be considered independent. gidonb (talk) 21:31, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I probably worded that wrong, but it depends on what they are publishing, and since I can't get into the documents it's hard for me to know. If they are publishing the contents of the archive, then it's like a catalog of an auction, even if it contains some descriptive text. If the book draws on sources outside of the archive and makes some new knowledge out of the data, then it's an independent source. "Bristol Record Society" sounds to me like a data archive, and a look at its publications gives me the impression that they are part transcriptions/publications of archival material, and part historical writing. I wish I could see this particular work. Lamona (talk) 06:09, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No no no. Consensus among keep and delete sayers alike (rare on this page!) is that this is an independent, reliable, secondary source, citing 9 earlier sources. The discussion is really if the source is extensive enough. The source is linked in the intro. Bristol Record Society is a historical society. As you were the first to point out, it seems to operate out of the history department of Bristol University. gidonb (talk) 14:41, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So if we take Richardson as a reliable and independent source, then you've got ONE such source. The remainder seems to be lists and a database in which this ship (or ship's voyage) is listed - essentially one entry that gives the name and a few facts, not different from any other ship. I have sympathy for the suggestions that individual voyages should not have their own articles. I haven't looked at the ship itself to understand if there are sufficient sources. Lamona (talk) 17:51, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

NP. Per WP:WHYN: We require the existence of at least one secondary source so that the article can comply with Wikipedia:No original research's requirement that all articles be based on secondary sources. This is not an article about a voyage and looking at the ship is highly recommended. It is what this article is about. gidonb (talk) 14:26, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect as there does not seem to be enough WP:SIGCOV to warrant an independent article. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 23:20, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timothytyy (talk) 04:17, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect - we have only one RS with significant coverage. A new article can be spun off if other significant coverage is found. Springnuts (talk) 12:36, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect: per above. Subject lacks RS with substantial and in depth coverage to justify an article.  // Timothy :: talk  09:46, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect, as above, unless an additional source appears. It's clear the Bristol slave trade is notable, but not this particular ship. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 22:27, 1 March 2023 (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.