Your submission at Articles for creation: All Known Little Ships of Dunkirk (May 4)
Draft declinedThank you for contributing to Wikipedia. Your draft submission to Articles for creation has been reviewed but not accepted at this time.
FeedbackThe reviewer, GGOTCC, left the following feedback:
Thank you. I have now revised the draft so that each vessel has at least one reference, and in many cases more than one, drawn from published and archival source lists. In that sense, it is not original research, as the entries are based on cited source material rather than unpublished interpretation. Maritimehistorianuk (talk) 18:02, 4 May 2026 (UTC)
Hello, Maritimehistorianuk!
Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! GGOTCC 17:28, 4 May 2026 (UTC)
Your submission at Articles for creation: All Known Little Ships of Dunkirk (May 4)
Draft declinedThank you for contributing to Wikipedia. Your draft submission to Articles for creation has been reviewed but not accepted at this time.
FeedbackThe reviewer, EatingCarBatteries, left the following feedback:
This draft is not suitable for Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a general publishing platform. We do not accept:
essays or original research: personal views, advocacy, unpublished theories, or pre-prints;
resumes or personal profiles: CVs, social networking pages, or memorials;
directories or manuals: travel guides, catalogs, or how-to instructions;
creative writing: fanfiction, worldbuilding, myths, or things you have made up.
While I appreciate the amount of work that went into this page and the importance of Dunkirk, this type of content isn't what Wikipedia is meant for.
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and isn't intended to host vast amounts of information in a database-like format. Content shouldn't be included just because it's true or useful, but whether it provides encyclopedic value. Data should typically be backed up with explanations cited to reliable sources, and to not be so excessive that it can impair readability.
Moreover, this page is so long that even my desktop computer with 16gb of RAM and a gaming CPU is having trouble editing in the source editor. Even loading the page is having some trouble.
Next steps
Edit Draft:All Known Little Ships of Dunkirk to address the points above, making sure to publish any changes.
When you are ready to resubmit your draft for review, click the Resubmit button.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it may be deleted.
Thank you for the further feedback. I appreciate the concern about scale and presentation, but the intention of this draft is not to serve as a standalone database-style repository. Rather, it is intended as an entry page to a structured set of vessel pages, each of which would allow fuller treatment of individual ships in a more conventional encyclopedic form. In that sense, the list is meant as a navigational index to more detailed content, not as an end in itself. We cannot simply invent a smaller list for reasons of convenience, as this is the list derived from the available published and archival source material.
I would also note that the earlier reviewer’s principal concern was the lack of references linking the vessels to Dunkirk, rather than the existence of the list itself. In response to that, the draft was revised so that the entries are now referenced throughout. My intention from here is to continue improving the material by contributing to the individual vessel pages as well. Maritimehistorianuk (talk) 18:20, 4 May 2026 (UTC)
A further point is that many of these vessels already overlap in title with namesakes or existing pages, so a structured index serves an encyclopedic purpose by distinguishing individual ships and linking them to the correct subject. In that sense, the page is intended as navigational and contextual material, rather than as a standalone data repository. Maritimehistorianuk (talk) 18:30, 4 May 2026 (UTC)
Your submission at Articles for creation: All Known Little Ships of Dunkirk (May 4)
Draft declinedThank you for contributing to Wikipedia. Your draft submission to Articles for creation has been reviewed but not accepted at this time.
FeedbackThe reviewer, Minna Sora no Shita, left the following feedback:
This draft is not suitable for Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a general publishing platform. We do not accept:
essays or original research: personal views, advocacy, unpublished theories, or pre-prints;
resumes or personal profiles: CVs, social networking pages, or memorials;
directories or manuals: travel guides, catalogs, or how-to instructions;
creative writing: fanfiction, worldbuilding, myths, or things you have made up.
>>>You didn't make any changes since your draft was last declined.
Thank you for the review. I believe there may be some misunderstanding here, as changes were made following the previous decline, and these were explained in my comments to the prior reviewer.
Specifically, the earlier concern was that vessels were not clearly linked to Dunkirk through reliable sources. In response, the draft was revised so that entries are now referenced throughout, using published and archival material to support inclusion. This addresses the point about original research, as the content is now directly supported by cited sources rather than unsupported compilation.
I also explained that the purpose of the page is as a navigational index to individual vessel articles, particularly where vessel names overlap, rather than as a standalone directory. That context may not have been considered in this latest review.
More broadly, these points are important as they explain both the changes made and the intent of the draft. Operation Dynamo and the Dunkirk evacuation are major historical events of the Second World War, and the vessels involved are widely recognised as part of that history. However, coverage of these vessels is currently fragmented, and in many cases absent, across individual articles. A structured, sourced index provides a way to organise that material and support the development of properly referenced vessel pages.
There is currently no single encyclopaedic, user-contributed resource that brings together these vessels in a structured and verifiable way, including their logs, service, and achievements where documented in reliable sources. The intention here is to support encyclopaedic coverage, not to create a standalone data repository. Maritimehistorianuk (talk) 22:02, 4 May 2026 (UTC)
Uninvolved editor here: Most of the ships on this list are unlikely to meet wikipedia's WP:Notability standard, and therefore are unlikely to ever have standalone articles about them. Thus the idea of an index may not work here, as most of the ships on the list will never link to their own articles. However, I support the work you're doing and hope that you find a place where it can be most useful. There is a World War II Wiki (unrelated to Wikipedia) which allows user contributions. dylansan (talk) 13:40, 6 May 2026 (UTC)
Commenting as the OG reviewer and member of WP:SHIPS, almost all of these vessels are not notable. The last several rows also do not help as it is original research in determining if the vessel was mentioned in certain documents.
This list would be better if other similar lists existed, and if the draft could communicate more information about each vessel such as the size or capacity, for example. GGOTCC 01:39, 7 May 2026 (UTC)
almost all of these vessels are not notable - you are very very wrong! so very wrong ~2026-27608-04 (talk) 08:37, 7 May 2026 (UTC)
A notable topic is one that has several reliable, secondary, published sources written about it. An article about a boat that is reliant on insurance registers, ship's logs, and government dispatches may be nominated for deletion for lacking notability. Heavy reliance on primary sources also strays into the realm of original research.
I just recently rewrote USS California (1867). All of the sources are either secondary books or articles. That is what is considered a notable vessel. GGOTCC 16:44, 7 May 2026 (UTC)
Hello, I'm Sarsenet. A comment that you recently posted to User talk:EatingCarBatteries#Review of Draft:All Known Little Ships of Dunkirk seemed to be generated using a large language model (an "AI chatbot" or other application using such technology). Editors should not use LLMs to write comments generatively. Communication is at the root of Wikipedia's decision-making process, and it is presumed that editors possess the ability to come up with their own ideas. Your comment may have been collapsed per the relevant guideline. If you want to practice editing, please use your sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Sarsenet•he/they•(talk) 07:36, 7 May 2026 (UTC)