Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Motor Torpedo Boat PT 105
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 --JForget 23:34, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Motor Torpedo Boat PT 105[edit]
- Motor Torpedo Boat PT 105 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Most of the material in this article is generic and should be in PT boat. The rest of the material is unsourced and borders on trivia. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:48, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - has a book (PT 105 ISBN-1557504695) written about it as well as mentions in At Close Quarters: PT Boats in the United States Navy, John F. Kennedy: A Biography, Hunters in the Shallows: A History of the PT Boat and others. Seems ample material available to write a good article on this small boat - Peripitus (Talk) 03:41, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I associated it with WP:MILHIST... let's see if the good folks there care to take an interest in improving the article. Jclemens (talk) 04:17, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I verified the ISBN # that Peripitus provided does exist. There might be a gem of an article waiting to be written here. Halifax Nomad (talk) 05:04, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:54, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep (as per above) and Move to Motor Torpedo Boat PT-105 for consistency with the PT-109 article's official name. --/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 05:28, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep interesting article but need more resources Kalivd (talk) 15:18, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Notable vessel that's the subject of a book. 23skidoo (talk) 19:05, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I have not heard anything convincing in terms of a deletion rationale. Cleanup, and rename, certainly. MrPrada (talk) 01:45, 18 June 2008 (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.