Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gloucester dory

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 merge to Banks dory. Consensus is to merge Gloucester dory, Swampscott dory and Cape Ann dory into Banks dory.

The opinions that this is the wrong venue and this should have been a talk page merge discussion have merit, but then discussion of the merge did continue here anyways and I find that it has sufficient consensus. The strongest argument is that all three sub-articles only have one single source, and it is the same exact book source for all three, making it almost impossible to write about them as truly distinct topics. However, I absolutely would not oppose further talk page discussion about the merge that may result in different consensus about keeping the topic separate or not (assuming more sourcing is uncovered). ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 16:31, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gloucester dory

Gloucester dory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

This is a slightly less accurate -or, rather, less complete - reduplication of the Cape Ann dory article. This is the same place, same boat. Merge? Delete? Anmccaff (talk) 16:29, 16 September 2016 (UTC) Anmccaff (talk) 16:29, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:14, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:14, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy close, wrong venue. You cannot delete a subject easily found in books. And Wikipedia:Merging may be handled only by these who are versed in the subject. By the way, how do you know it is "same boat"? Can you cite sources which say that? If yes, nobody prevents you from merging. If not, hold your horses. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:32, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, the "Gloucester dory" cited in that book is likely a different boat, it would appear. "Gloucester dory" can refer to near-shore surfboats used in fishing -the subject of this article and the Cape Ann dory article- but also to Gloucester-built dories regardless of design, to dories carried by Gloucester fishing boats, etc. It's an ambiguous term, which is another good reason to use "Cape Ann", which is a little more specific. Anmccaff (talk) 18:41, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your reply is a confirmation that this is wrong venue. And you did not answer my questions. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:33, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. This article duplicates, completely, another; yin or t'other should go. There should only be one article about any given subject.

Next, you responded to this afd by removing sources material from one of the articles; both are mainly based on Gardener's dory book, but the material also shows quite accessibly in Chapelle's American Small Sailing Craft, Their Design, Development, and Construction, around page 90, if memory serves. This is something which anyone with even a moderate awareness of the subject is familiar with; I'd assumed that anyone with an opinion here would either be acquainted with the subject, or make themselves so, not just dredge up something on Google.

Next, let me again point out the mere publication doesn't indicate notability, especially for publishers who specialize in narrow subjects, which are Arcadia's bread-and-butter. Anmccaff (talk) 18:17, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

re: "by removing sources material from one of the articles" the source cited speaks about Johnson sailing dory, but does not say it was Cape Ann dory. Please provide another reference. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:07, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note that you removed two separate blocks of information. Anmccaff (talk) 00:50, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And...? Staszek Lem (talk) 19:07, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

re: "This article duplicates, completely," - completely false statement, even for a person with morderate awareness of English language. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:07, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, good to see the acknowledgement, but, no, it is not false. It's ambiguous; I'd expect you choose the meaningful interpretation. The two articles cover exactly the same subject: small beach dories common to a particular area. There is complete overlap of the subjects as the articles are written; that need not have been the case, since it's trivially easy to get examples of "Gloucester dory' referring to other designs built at or hailing from Gloucester. {[User:Anmccaff|Anmccaff]] (talk) 00:50, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Covering the same object" is not the same as "duplicate, completely". Subjects may overlap, but text may be 100% different. You have yet to prove that the subjects overlap, citing reliable sources. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:10, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand your opinion these are the same, bearing in mind that Gloucester, Massachusetts is on Cape Ann, but you have yet to provide the sources which say so. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:07, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

...aside from Chapelle, you mean? Anmccaff (talk) 00:50, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please cite Chapelle who says they are the same. I did look through the book, section about dories, but failed to find this. I admit this could have been stated indirectly and I missed it. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:07, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

re "publication doesn't indicate notability <etc>" - I fail to comprehend your argument; narrow subjects are quite fit for encyclopedia, as long as they are covered in specialized publications. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:07, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No. Almost every high school student in some areas is reliably pictured in a school yearbook, yet this clearly makes neither them, or their class year, or their school, automatically notable. The mere fact that something could get printed is no guarantee of notability. Many of Arcadia's publications exemplify this. Anmccaff (talk) 00:50, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Poor comparison. Yearbooks are not reliable sources for wikipedia. If you doubt that Arcadia publications are reliable sources, you may argue your point in WP:RSN. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:07, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Water transport-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:14, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Banks dory as appears to be a variation of said boat. Nordic Nightfury 12:35, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merging -all- the dory articles might make sense, but the shore-fishing dories preceded the bankers by at least three decades, and more likely about a century. Again, see Chapelle, American Small &cet, who flavours the later date, and Gardner, who favors the earlier. Anmccaff (talk) 17:04, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Once again wrong venue. There are rules about non-trivial merging requests: you have to put merge tag on both pages: source and target, so that all interested editors are notified. If you tag only some obscure page, the editors of the more general and (more edited) page will not even see the merge request. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:43, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

...were someone starting an actual merge discussion, that might be relevant. Anmccaff (talk) 18:09, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Wrong venue (as per WP:DP, move to a talk page)  @Jo-Jo Eumerus: This AfD was IMO improperly relisted as there was no argument for deletion and the request to close was not processed.  Please do so now.  Unscintillating (talk) 21:32, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:DEL#5 does give content forks as a potential reason for deletion, and I am inclined to treat a duplication as the same thing. So actually there was a valid deletion reason in the opening post. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:42, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Pray tell me how did you figure out it is a "duplication of the same thing"? Did you actually look into the two articles? The nominator failed to answer me this simple question despite long chat. BTW DEL#5 specifically says unless merge/redirect is appropriate. Clearly, in this esoteric topic a random wikipedian cannot make an educated decision unless the article text is essentially the same, which is obviously not the case. Hence expert opinions are required, hence wrong venue. Staszek Lem (talk)

Don't assume when you did not hear an answer that the error was entirely in transmission. Anyone reading the references in the articles, Gardner and Chapelle, can see that they are discussing the same boat, an oar-and-sail nearshore dory somewhat similar in hull shape to a banker. This need not have been the case; there was a power boat commercially named the "Cape Ann Dory" that is essentially s Swampscott dory with a good deal of decking made early in the 20th century, and several US government fisheries reports that use "Cape Ann dory" to refer to bankers in the 19th century.

Next, there is nothing at all "esoteric" about the topic, at least in many places.

Finally, a "random wikipedian" would, I hope, have the good sense to either hold his tongue, or read the references, before weighing in. Anmccaff (talk) 18:40, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please write a plain answer: which reference directly say that the two are the same. You say: "Anyone reading the references in the articles, Gardner and Chapelle, can see ..." - Wikipedians' inferences are called original research and not allowed in articles. Just cite the piece which says they are the same, and done with it. Resorting to personal insults usually means that there are no better arguments. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:27, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Dory, and merge Cape Ann dory and Swampscott dory there as well. All are only sourced to one mention in a book, which is not enough to support an article.  Sandstein  11:10, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - this is the right venue I disagree with saying that this is the wrong venue. Often, AfD is the only place where an article will receive attention. Content forks are a valid reason for deletion: whether it is indeed a content fork or not is something to be debated during the AfD. Speedy closing AfDs like these actually stop the discussion and adds to the bureaucracy. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:14, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Your argument is confusing speedy close, which ends a discussion; with wrong venue, which moves a discussion.  If you want a centralized discussion place for redirect/merge/notability discussions, it is my understanding that the community has already agreed to implement this forum.  AfD is for WP:Deletion policy, not content disputes.  Unscintillating (talk) 13:39, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Banks dory Dory (Updated per below). The content is short, sourced to a single book and it is ripe for merging. Merging also helps to improve the target page here. I guess the other articles can be merged as well. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:17, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Notified some interested parties as well [1], [2], [3]. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:19, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Updated to a merge to Banks dory --Lemongirl942 (talk) 11:25, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Banks dory. Merge also Swampscott dory and Cape Ann dory to Banks dory. These are just variants of the Banks dory and don't warrant separate articles. On the other hand, the Banks dory, associated with fishing on or near the Grand Banks, is an iconic boat and does warrant its own article. The dust kicked up above is just obscuring the issue. --Epipelagic (talk) 11:10, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• That which is obscuring the discussion above is the discussion above, which is in the wrong venue.  AfD volunteers are not subject matter experts (SME) on all topics on Wikipedia.  A merge result out of AfD is not binding for several other reasons.  Wikipedia doesn't work well by bands of editors declaring that somebody somewhere sometime should do some content work as required by the band of editors.  Administrators are not bound into subsequent content disputes just because they closed an AfD.  Are you volunteering to do this merge?  If so, then I will consider withdrawing my !vote.  Unscintillating (talk) 13:39, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The article was a possible content fork and AfD is the place to discuss it. In fact AfD is the place where articles are brought so that it receives attention from the community and we decide what to do with it. As you saw here, I managed to find someone who is familiar with the topic in general. Getting even this little bit of attention helps and each of this is a baby step to improving the quality of the encyclopaedia. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:29, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• This is an old argument that has the form that the end justifies the means.  However, closer analysis indicates that the problem with quality on Wikipedia is not due to insufficient AfD discussions.  If this were true, we'd have robots bringing articles to AfD to increase the workload for the ARS.  It doesn't take much analysis to conclude that improving articles just before they are deleted does not improve the encyclopedia.  Unscintillating (talk) 16:16, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not sure whether I understand you. Are you asserting that "this article was not a content fork in any way" and that "this should be kept as it is"? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:54, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I asserted neither of those things.  AfD is for worthless articles, where the breaking of the assumption of good faith to the content contributors has a foundation in policy.  If you want to have redirect/merge/notability discussions, either follow existing WP:Deletion policy, which says to use talk pages and if necessary, RfC; or move forward with the centralized discussion forum for such.  Redirect/merge/notability discussions are covered as a part of WP:Editing policy, and do not require administrator tools.  Unscintillating (talk) 17:33, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Re merging to Banks dory, authoritative sources, e.g. Chapelle and Gardner, unambiguously note that that the grand banks dory is a variant of the coastal boats, not the other way round. Anmccaff (talk) 05:13, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, coastal prototypes were developed first (or rather, beach dories – the Banks dory is still essentially a coastal boat). It's almost obvious that that would be the case. But it was the Banks dory during its classic period that most represented the idea of the developed dory in the public mind. --Epipelagic (talk) 06:29, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But an encyclopedia, or something trying to impersonate one, does not base itself on public impressions, except in areas which the public is reasonably expert. The banks dory, for all it lit'rary and artistic prominance, was a blind alley of dory development. The Swampscott boats and the Cape Anns, in the sense that 'Cape Ann" is used here, are not.

A real problem is that so many of the terms used are inherently ambiguous, expecially seen over time. A Cape Ann is a small oar-and-sail beach dory with washboards....except when it's a banks dory, or a decked powerboat actually based on the Swampscott/Nahant boats. Anmccaff (talk) 16:55, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I largely agree with you, though I wouldn't characterise the Banks dory as a "blind alley". Rather, it represents the heyday of the dory. --Epipelagic (talk) 04:32, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nahh. The Bankers proper were obsolescent by the early 1900s, which is when the Boston Power Dories came into their own. The western rapids dories -cousins of both the Cape Anns, and the lumberman's bateau- are still made and still the dominant solution in some waters. The bankers lasted only so long as life was cheap, frankly. A swampscott boat could be made to nest, too, but not at the price. Anmccaff (talk) 05:12, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. There is sufficient evidence that it is notable; whether it is to be handled as a variant of other similar notable boats is not a question for discussion here. Is there any unambiguous academic source saying there is no significant difference. DGG ( talk ) 01:43, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"there is sufficient evidence" that what, exactly, is notable? The article is about a boat which is precisely the same boat seen in "Cape Ann dory." do you feel it so extremely notable that it requires two separate articles, or are you suggesting we nuke the other? Anmccaff (talk) 01:53, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop repeating "they are the same boat" without proof. I asked you several times here already: Please write a plain answer: which reference directly say that the two are the same. You say: "Anyone reading the references in the articles, Gardner and Chapelle, can see ..." - Wikipedians' inferences are called original research and not allowed in articles. Just cite the piece which says they are the same, and done with it. 02:46, 18 October 2016 (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.