Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HMS Shamrock

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 keep. Withdrawn by nominator with no delete !votes. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 06:09, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

HMS Shamrock[edit]

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

What's the point for having an article with a list of two ships that don't have articles? Bbb23 (talk) 02:05, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This should be withdrawn by the nominator. This isn't an article at all; it's a ship index page listing ships of the same name in the Royal Navy.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:38, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Sturmvogel 66: - this is the correct venue to discuss disambiguation pages and similar. Mjroots (talk) 09:37, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 02:56, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - perfectly good shipindex page, listing all Royal Navy ships with the name Shamrock. Mjroots (talk) 09:37, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've removed the Disambiguation project banner which was on the talk page, and which will have caused it to be listed on that project's alerts page. PamD 10:39, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Perfectly fine list of ships with the name. Added another one from 1918.Icewhiz (talk) 10:52, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The page is within the guidelines of WP:Disambiguation dos and don'ts, with the exception of the references. The references are needed precisely because there are no articles. The page can be brought into compliance with WP:Disambiguation dos and don'ts by putting the references as WP:Hidden text, but that would not be helpful, so I would say WP:IAR and keep the references until the articles are created. BarbadosKen (talk) 16:44, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- A minor point of fact: dab page guidelines don't apply to WP:SETINDEXes. Parsecboy (talk) 12:58, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - this is an index (see the link in my comment directly above), not an article or a disambiguation page. Parsecboy (talk) 12:58, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A long time ago I nominated a place for deletion because it failed GNG. The place was kept, not because it satisfied notability guidelines but because, as I found, all places are inherently notable as long as they exist. You could have a one-person village on a six squarefoot island in the middle of an ocean, and it could still have an article. I never nominated another place for deletion. Unlike places, guidelines for index articles - and indexes are a kind of article (there's no such thing as index space in Wikipedia) - exist. They essentially follow the same guidelines as standalone lists. That wouldn't be too bad except the guidelines for standalone list articles are full of loopholes, and some are probably large enough for one of these royal ships to sail through. Bottom line: this is a case of practice vs. policy, and practice will out. I therefore withdraw the nomination.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:20, 19 February 2018 (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.