Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arabic Case

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 SS Arabic (1902)#Sinking. Since four responents have advocated redirecting Arabic pledge as well, I'm also going to boldly redirect that article. Merging of content to the target from either article or both is at editorial discretion. Deor (talk) 19:01, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Arabic Case

Arabic Case (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)

Article appears to be a Content Fork of SS Arabic (1902) that adds nothing substantive beyond what's already in the main ship article. It is a single source Stub that seems to have little prospect for expansion into an encyclopedic article. I had considered the possibility of a merge but the subject is dealt with in much greater detail by the main article. As it stands I just don't see anything in here that's really worth merging. Ad Orientem (talk) 13:26, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete – Adds nothing that isn't already covered in ship article. —Diiscool (talk) 13:49, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • redirect to SS Arabic (1902)#Sinking given that searching show "Arabic case" to be used to refer to the incident in much literature of the time. Mangoe (talk) 15:08, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Mangoe. Sentence on post-WW1 settlement needs inclusion if given source confirmed. Davidships (talk) 16:14, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Mangoe/Davidships. --Boson (talk) 16:42, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have no objection to the suggestion of a redirect, or the inclusion of the last sentence from the article. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:11, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect and add whatever unique content (I also don't see anything about the "attack occurring soon after the exchange of notes that followed the torpedoing of the RMS Lusitania..." in the SS Arabic article) there is to SS Arabic (1902). Blaylockjam10 (talk) 22:26, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Arabic pledge ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 08:06, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Respectfully disagree. That article looks like yet another content fork that adds little of substance to what is already contained in the ship's article. I will look at it again when I have a few minutes buy I am seriously considering sending it to AfD. -Ad Orientem (talk) 11:49, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Mangoe. I don't believe the case is covered in sufficient depth in the literature to merit a separate article, unlike (for instance) the Corfu Channel incident and the Corfu Channel Case. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 22:05, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without redirect. Redundant to SS Arabic (1902), nothing to merge. "Arabic Case" does not seem like a likely search term that would obviously refer to this ship, as opposed to any of a number of other cases of things Arabic or Arabian, so this would not be a useful redirect, and could in fact be detrimental for someone searching on some other subject that might be described as an Arabic case. Redirects are cheap, but their pointless proliferation is noisy. TJRC (talk) 23:39, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect. If there are people searching the case with this title we should help them to find the ship article easily. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 15:43, 12 July 2014 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Arabic_Case&oldid=1068824465"