Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sailing and Fighting Instructions

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 userfy to User:Renaissancee/Sailing and Fighting Instructions for the time being. If it is properly rewritten, it may be moved back. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:00, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sailing and Fighting Instructions[edit]

This was tagged as a disambiguation, but I don't see this as disambiguating anything. The only thing I see here is a long list of non-notable instructions issued by random people in the 1700s. The instructions are also completely unsourced as why these instruction should be included while others are not. Also, the disambiguation fails for the most part MOS:DABRL as a disambiguation should point to other articles, not a random assortment of redlinks. Tavix | Talk 01:33, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep but not as a dab, at least at this point; make it a single article onthe subject's title ([1], [2]). JJL (talk) 01:39, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. -- J^mundo 01:55, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per JJL. Also de-redlink the list unless you want to eventually nominate each one for deletion. The author should be cautioned not to create separate articles unless there is enough verifiable material to warrant one, a few may qualify. Also consider moving to "List of Sailing and Fighting Instructions" or similar. Drawn Some (talk) 02:44, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep at least as a list. Probably an article can be written about each, but I'm not going to do it. If by any chance they are in WikiSource, add links. if not, they'd be appropriate. DGG (talk) 03:56, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete huge list of red links? Why? JBsupreme (talk) 06:20, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy to a subpage for the originating author (User:Renaissancee) for the time being. The nominator is right that this doesn't appear to have anything to disambiguate at the present. It seems instead to be a to-do list for a fairly substantial project involving any number of historic naval general orders. As a list of proposed articles, it probably ought to be at a user page for the time being. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:34, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per, err, incomprehensible and useless.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:36, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not for miscellaneous collections of information. The inclusion criteria are vague. If all such instructions from ancient times to the present were included, it would still be a collection of redlinks to primary sources. OK to userfy and for the creator of the list to figure out what article he wants to create. I fear the intent is to create articles for each set of signals, and those might not meet our criteria for notability. Oerhaps Wikisource is the proper place for a mass of primary sources. Meanwhile, "Don't give up the ship, damn the torpedoes and full speed ahead, don't shoot until you see the whites of their eyes, ride to the sound of the cannons, and git thar fustest with the mostest!" Edison (talk) 15:38, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The suitability of any one given set of these orders for its own article is yet to be seen. The article already suggests that some of them were issued by notable commanders, and a few of them may have had some impact in battles. Since the title seems to be standard, at least as regards the Royal Navy, there probably ought to be a general article describing their contents. I found at least one sample online. We also have an interesting but under-referenced article on Naval tactics in the Age of Sail that seems relevant. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 18:47, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Do we really need another list of red links? Tresiden (talk) 19:20, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All sources were gathered from Naval Warfare In the Age of Sail: The Evolution of Fighting Tactics 1650-1815 by Brian Tunstall and edited by Dr. Nicholas Tracy. The reason I haven't updated it recently is life has been a little hectic, and I assume no users really want to contribute to famous naval battle orders. All articles are meticulously recorded and noted in the book, as well as multiple effects to where it took place and what else used it's information. But yes, I believe a few of them could go. I'll have to weed out the weak ones first. Renaissancee (talk) 21:44, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Encyclopedic information. Notable. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:50, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you prove it? All I'm seeing a long list of unreferenced redlinks. Please enlighten me on how you came to this conclusion... Tavix | Talk 02:40, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Very strange series of dead links, serves no useful encyclopedic purpose. --Johnnyturk888 (talk) 12:02, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy Allowing the benefit of the doubt that at least some of these are notable, it seems the information would be better presented as a table or a detailed list, not in the format of a disambiguation page consisting entirely of redlinks. I'd vote to delete if the creator weren't here and expressing the intention to improve the page; since he is, I have no opposition to him working on the page further, but it doesn't seem ready for prime-time in its current state. Propaniac (talk) 21:16, 2 May 2009 (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.