Talk:Columbia

RFD discussion: August 2013–April 2014
Rfd-sense: Columbia Rediviva, a famous American sailing ship.

Is there anything special about this ship that it needs its own definition? From my non-American bias it just seems to be the name of a ship, which is clearly not dictionary material. -- Liliana • 20:15, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete DCDuring TALK 21:13, 20 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. If anything, have a "See also" section linking to this on Wikipedia, rather than a sense line; but I doubt it's worth it. Equinox ◑ 01:02, 21 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. As far as I can tell, we don't have ship names, except for the occasional exception like the Titanic which has entered the langage as a symbol of something. Having just the one makes no sense, especially since most Americans have never heard of it, let alone anyone outside the US. I would say that even the space-shuttle sense is borderline, though its association with tragedy might argue for some kind of symbolic overtones. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:45, 21 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment. The sense seems to be there to support the following sense, "The space shuttle Columbia, named after the sailing ship", which should probably deleted as well. —Angr 11:53, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * It's very borderline (Challenger is more commonly used to refer to a disaster). I gave it the benefit of the doubt but wouldn't mind if someone else nominated it as well. -- Liliana • 14:28, 21 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Strong keep: The river was named after the ship. The spaceship was named after the ship.  Ergo, both definitions are dependent on the ship.  Purplebackpack89  (Notes Taken) (Locker) 21:17, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I would expect you to defend your definition, but... according to Burbank, California: "The city was named after David Burbank, a New Hampshire–born dentist and entrepreneur". We have an entry for Burbank- does that mean we should have one for the dentist (who Wikipedia doesn't consider notable enough for an article)?. Presence in etymologies isn't a reason for having an entry, especially since we can link to Wikipedia articles. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:46, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The two are hardly analogous. The fact that the ship has a Wikipedia article is the first way that comes to mind.  You mention only a few ships have entries here.  a) Columbia should be one of the ones that does, and b) I see no policy arbitrary limiting the number of ships.  Also, the fact that no one has heard of it now is hardly relevant; notability at any period in recorded history is sufficient; the ship had such notability 100-200 years ago  Purplebackpack89  (Notes Taken) (Locker) 00:41, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Deleted. I have merged the pertinent etymological information into the definition line for the space shuttle. bd2412 T 13:56, 21 April 2014 (UTC)