Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shell to Sea Fleet

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. Nja²⁴⁷ 08:22, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shell to Sea Fleet

This article is not notable - it's about a few people in canoes and small boats protesting. The wider issue is covered in many other articles e.g. Shell to Sea. Note that this is related to an ongoing discussion on the conflict of interest noticeboard: Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Corrib_Gas_Articles_.26_Shell_to_Sea Smartse (talk) 01:28, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - When we write articles about protest movements, we should be sure to cover them in a balanced way. A better place to describe this movement in context is in the Shell to Sea article. The picture included in the article shows eight people paddling around in small boats. This is not a protest on the same scale as thousands of people gathered somewhere in a public square. EdJohnston (talk) 01:58, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. —ww2censor (talk) 02:20, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: I previously suggested merging this into the Shell to Sea article but no one supported the idea. Perhaps now is the time to do that. ww2censor (talk) 02:20, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per nom. Snappy (talk) 04:02, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge anything not in Shell to Sea and then redirect. This is getting to be ridiculous, there is a big brouhaha over at the conflict of interest noticeboard as well. Drawn Some (talk) 04:16, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - already aptly covered in Shell to Sea. Thanks! Fin ©™ 06:57, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete & Merge whatever info is relevant into Shell to Sea . G~~ain~~Line ^♠_♥ 08:57, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please read Wikipedia:Merge and delete which explains why it's not a valid option. - Mgm|^(talk) 16:24, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

well then straight delete, most of this stuff is covered in s2s already. G~~ain~~Line ^♠_♥

Keep I don't really have a problem with a merge but there'a strong possibility the fleet will mobilise again very soon, which could mean its section on the S2S page will grow out of proportion to the main article, necessitating a new fork. I've had a look at Wikipedia:Notability, and I don't understand exactly what part of it applies here. Anyone care to enlighten? Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 13:49, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Does anyone belive this topic warrants an article almost the same size as Stena Line, one of the largest operators on the Irish Sea?

Comment That's not a very large article for such a large operator. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 14:30, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Or is this just a very large article for a very small topic? G~~ain~~Line

^♠_♥ 14:49, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment One reason it is not notable is WP:NTEMP. The references provided only mention the fleet in passing (and some make no mention of it) - this sentence is worth bearing in mind ""Presumed" means that substantive coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, of notability" (from WP:N) Smartse (talk) 17:51, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable in itself. In fact, in my opinion, the whole Shell to Sea, Corrib gas controversy and related articles have blown to an undue weight and non neutral standpoint to they point that they are being used as campaigning and almost attack articles by some editors with obvious conflicts of interest. The whole suite of articles needs looking at and something done. Yes the topics involved are notable, no issues there, but the articles themselves are not really appropriate as written. Photos with no evidence they depict what is said for them to be depicting, photos of people committing illegal acts where persons are identifiable, and really really slanted POV. Canterbury Tail talk 16:09, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have been trying to do some work on these as has user:falcon9x5 but as you can see its been frustration at almost every step. Any input would be more than welcome. G~~ain~~Line ^♠_♥ 16:30, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the whole thing is a news story that will be historical insignificant. The fact that it was covered in the press makes it news, not encyclopedic. WP:NOTNEWS. -Atmoz (talk) 17:54, 5 May 2009 (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.