SS Vesta – Redirect closure endorsed. (NAC) – Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{WrestleMania XXVIII} _{The Undertaker 20–0} 09:56, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
SS Vesta (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (XfD`\|`restore) In the AFD respondents said practically nothing was known about the Vesta, other than that she sank the SS Arctic, even though she displaced just 250 tons, barely more than 1/12 the displacement of the Arctic. The closing adminstrator decided to redirect to SS Arctic. I learned something else Charles Ellet, the engineer who introduced naval rams into the US arsenal was inspired by the Vesta's sinking of the much larger Arctic. Yes, it is hardly much more information. But I think, nevertheless, it would be a good idea to promote SS Vesta from being a redirect to being a stub. For biographies we don't normally retain a BLP when the individual is only known for "one event". I think we should refine this principle, from "one event", to "one topic". In this instance the single event, the sinking, is related to three topics. It is of course related to the topic of the sinking of the SS Arctic. It is related to the topic of Charles Ellet Jr., the inventor inspired by the sinking to re-introduce naval ramming. And, we could have an article The use of naval rams during the American Civil War. In my opinion, Charles Ellet Jr. should link to SS Vesta, or Sinking of the SS Arctic by the SS Vesta. So too should The use of naval rams during the American Civil War. The status quo -- where SS Vesta is a redirection to SS Arctic#sinking -- is unsatisfactory. A good faith editor of SS Arctic could remove as off-topic information relevant to a reader who came to the article from the article on Charles Ellet Jr. or The use of naval rams during the American Civil War. FWIW I added a paragraph about how the Vesta inspired Ellet to the article on Ellet. Geo Swan (talk) 18:39, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] Endorse closure by default because no argument is made why the closure misjudged consensus. DRV is not AfD round 2, i.e., this is not the place to start the discussion on the merits all over again. Sandstein 00:09, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] Comment - You gotta ask for something concrete that can be acted on. All I got from the DRV request is that "SS Vesta redirecting to SS Arctic#sinking is unsatisfactory." The only reply I can think of is thank you for sharing your thoughts. Do you want the redirect deleted? Do you want the deletion overturned and the article restored? Do you want permission to recreate the article using substantial new information that you've come across since the deletion? We don't have stub articles and articles, we merely have articles that meet WP:GNG. Refine this principle, from "one event", to "one topic" is more of a Wikipedia:Village pump topic and any thing concluded at DRV can't affect the principle. DRV can't delete Charles Ellet Jr., create SS Vesta, and then redirect Charles Ellet Jr. to SS Vesta. That sounds more like a move or merge request, which happens elsewhere (not DRV). The SS Arctic was sunk in 1854 after colliding with the ship SS Vesta. Seems reasonable to redirect SS Vesta to SS Arctic. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 01:21, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] Endorse closure as redirect, per the reasoning of Uzma Gamal and Sandstein. This DRV request lacks any specific challenge to the AfD closure. The filing at DRV contains nothing we can act on. Thanks to User:Geo Swan for his improvement to Charles Ellet Jr. based on the discussion here. I don't understand Geo Swan's objection to making SS Vesta into a redirect. The web page at wrecksite.eu gives some information that might permit a more substantive article to be created on SS Vesta and I wouldn't object to anyone adding this before the DRV closes. Anyone who does that should ping me so I could change my vote. EdJohnston (talk) 16:56, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] Endorse, but it should be possible to find additional sources, and if so, it can be restored to article status. That would answer all objections DGG ( talk ) 14:57, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

In the AFD respondents said practically nothing was known about the Vesta, other than that she sank the SS Arctic, even though she displaced just 250 tons, barely more than 1/12 the displacement of the Arctic. The closing adminstrator decided to redirect to SS Arctic.

I learned something else Charles Ellet, the engineer who introduced naval rams into the US arsenal was inspired by the Vesta's sinking of the much larger Arctic.

Yes, it is hardly much more information. But I think, nevertheless, it would be a good idea to promote SS Vesta from being a redirect to being a stub. For biographies we don't normally retain a BLP when the individual is only known for "one event".

I think we should refine this principle, from "one event", to "one topic". In this instance the single event, the sinking, is related to three topics. It is of course related to the topic of the sinking of the SS Arctic. It is related to the topic of Charles Ellet Jr., the inventor inspired by the sinking to re-introduce naval ramming. And, we could have an article The use of naval rams during the American Civil War.

In my opinion, Charles Ellet Jr. should link to SS Vesta, or Sinking of the SS Arctic by the SS Vesta. So too should The use of naval rams during the American Civil War.

The status quo -- where SS Vesta is a redirection to SS Arctic#sinking -- is unsatisfactory. A good faith editor of SS Arctic could remove as off-topic information relevant to a reader who came to the article from the article on Charles Ellet Jr. or The use of naval rams during the American Civil War.

FWIW I added a paragraph about how the Vesta inspired Ellet to the article on Ellet. Geo Swan (talk) 18:39, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse closure by default because no argument is made why the closure misjudged consensus. DRV is not AfD round 2, i.e., this is not the place to start the discussion on the merits all over again. Sandstein 00:09, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - You gotta ask for something concrete that can be acted on. All I got from the DRV request is that "SS Vesta redirecting to SS Arctic#sinking is unsatisfactory." The only reply I can think of is thank you for sharing your thoughts. Do you want the redirect deleted? Do you want the deletion overturned and the article restored? Do you want permission to recreate the article using substantial new information that you've come across since the deletion? We don't have stub articles and articles, we merely have articles that meet WP:GNG. Refine this principle, from "one event", to "one topic" is more of a Wikipedia:Village pump topic and any thing concluded at DRV can't affect the principle. DRV can't delete Charles Ellet Jr., create SS Vesta, and then redirect Charles Ellet Jr. to SS Vesta. That sounds more like a move or merge request, which happens elsewhere (not DRV). The SS Arctic was sunk in 1854 after colliding with the ship SS Vesta. Seems reasonable to redirect SS Vesta to SS Arctic. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 01:21, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure as redirect, per the reasoning of Uzma Gamal and Sandstein. This DRV request lacks any specific challenge to the AfD closure. The filing at DRV contains nothing we can act on. Thanks to User:Geo Swan for his improvement to Charles Ellet Jr. based on the discussion here. I don't understand Geo Swan's objection to making SS Vesta into a redirect. The web page at wrecksite.eu gives some information that might permit a more substantive article to be created on SS Vesta and I wouldn't object to anyone adding this before the DRV closes. Anyone who does that should ping me so I could change my vote. EdJohnston (talk) 16:56, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, but it should be possible to find additional sources, and if so, it can be restored to article status. That would answer all objections DGG ( talk ) 14:57, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

India Programme XII on Diabetes Research – Delete closure endorsed (NAC). – Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{WrestleMania XXVIII} _{The Undertaker 20–0} 09:56, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
India Programme XII on Diabetes Research (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (XfD`\|`restore) I think the PROD discussion didn't reach a very clear consensus to Delete the article. I think it can be relisted with reference to WP:POTENTIAL , WP:DEADLINE and may be others of which I'm not aware of yet. VIVEK RAI : Friend? 17:20, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] endorse The AfD (not Prod) discussion reached a good consensus that there was not yet material for an article, and nothing has changed in the last 2 weeks. When there is, the article can be rewritten. However, I suggest it might be better to try to write an article on India Programmes on Diabetes Research, giving some mention of the earlier programmes. It's usually better to treat such topics as a series, not individual articles. DGG ( talk ) 17:24, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] Endorse deletion - Per DGG, if these programs are going to be mentioned on Wikipedia a better place to do that is in a broader article such as 'India programmes on diabetes research'. Not every government pronouncement deserves its own article here, when external coverage is minimal. In this case the government is only making a prediction of something it intends to do in the future, which falls under WP:CRYSTAL. In terms of whether the AfD was correctly closed, see the AfD for details, but there were four votes to Delete (counting the nominator), one Keep, and one Weak Keep. The Keep votes seemed to be hoping for something favorable to occur in the future. EdJohnston (talk) 19:38, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] As closer, I join the suggestions above to write a broader article about these programs or India's public health policy in general. Such broader topics are much more likely to be notable. Sandstein 00:06, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] Endorse - per above. Comment - In an 18 October 2011 publication by the Government of India Department of Atomic Energy,[1] their Planning Commission Working Group on Mega Science and Global Alliances listed "India Programme XII on Diabetes Research" on page 25 as the name for a call for proposals for global alliance in diabetes research as part of a Metabolic Diseases program. I don't know how you go from atomic energy to diabetes research, but there you are. Government of India Department of Atomic Energy is a broader topic and you may be able to post information about India Programme XII on Diabetes Research in that article. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 00:53, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] * Comment : I don't know how Department of Atomic Energy is concerned with this matter anyway. I think we can find it also somewhere under Ministry of Health. Anyways, I really agree with ideas mentioned above that the article should be conceived into an article which is broader in sense and can be enriched and expanded more with suitable data,figures and necessary citation. So, the possible remedies that are available this time are - merger or renaming. However, I shall prefer the latter idea, and if allowed would like to invite a collaborative effort towards improving articles on Public Health in India with especial emphasis to diseases like Tuberculosis, Diabetes and others. In fact, I have also started the former one. And lastly, I would like to devote my sincere thanks to everyone participating in this discussion. VIVEK RAI : Friend? 14:02, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

India Programme XII on Diabetes Research – Delete closure endorsed (NAC). – Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{WrestleMania XXVIII} _{The Undertaker 20–0} 09:56, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

I think the PROD discussion didn't reach a very clear consensus to Delete the article. I think it can be relisted with reference to WP:POTENTIAL , WP:DEADLINE and may be others of which I'm not aware of yet. VIVEK RAI : Friend? 17:20, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

endorse The AfD (not Prod) discussion reached a good consensus that there was not yet material for an article, and nothing has changed in the last 2 weeks. When there is, the article can be rewritten. However, I suggest it might be better to try to write an article on India Programmes on Diabetes Research, giving some mention of the earlier programmes. It's usually better to treat such topics as a series, not individual articles. DGG ( talk ) 17:24, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion - Per DGG, if these programs are going to be mentioned on Wikipedia a better place to do that is in a broader article such as 'India programmes on diabetes research'. Not every government pronouncement deserves its own article here, when external coverage is minimal. In this case the government is only making a prediction of something it intends to do in the future, which falls under WP:CRYSTAL. In terms of whether the AfD was correctly closed, see the AfD for details, but there were four votes to Delete (counting the nominator), one Keep, and one Weak Keep. The Keep votes seemed to be hoping for something favorable to occur in the future. EdJohnston (talk) 19:38, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As closer, I join the suggestions above to write a broader article about these programs or India's public health policy in general. Such broader topics are much more likely to be notable. Sandstein 00:06, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - per above. Comment - In an 18 October 2011 publication by the Government of India Department of Atomic Energy,[1] their Planning Commission Working Group on Mega Science and Global Alliances listed "India Programme XII on Diabetes Research" on page 25 as the name for a call for proposals for global alliance in diabetes research as part of a Metabolic Diseases program. I don't know how you go from atomic energy to diabetes research, but there you are. Government of India Department of Atomic Energy is a broader topic and you may be able to post information about India Programme XII on Diabetes Research in that article. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 00:53, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

* Comment : I don't know how Department of Atomic Energy is concerned with this matter anyway. I think we can find it also somewhere under Ministry of Health. Anyways, I really agree with ideas mentioned above that the article should be conceived into an article which is broader in sense and can be enriched and expanded more with suitable data,figures and necessary citation. So, the possible remedies that are available this time are - merger or renaming. However, I shall prefer the latter idea, and if allowed would like to invite a collaborative effort towards improving articles on Public Health in India with especial emphasis to diseases like Tuberculosis, Diabetes and others. In fact, I have also started the former one. And lastly, I would like to devote my sincere thanks to everyone participating in this discussion. VIVEK RAI : Friend? 14:02, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.