Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/H-45

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 redirect to H class battleship proposals. MBisanz ^talk 23:02, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

H-45[edit]

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

The H-45 design never existed, it was created in an internet forum (see here - you must log into the site to see it) and was copied by Porter, who obviously did not do nearly a good enough job on his research. The article creator attempted to insert this material into the H class battleship proposals article, and when that was rejected, s/he created this one. It needs to go. Parsecboy (talk) 19:08, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment if any material is salvageable, it should be merged to H class battleship proposals. Otherwise Delete and redirect to H45 as a {{R from alternate spelling}} (delete the edit history; create a redirect to the disambiguation page) -- 76.65.128.43 (talk) 01:05, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; seems to fail the GNG, plus the hoaxiness problem. We do actually have articles on hoaxes, but they need to be notable and they need good secondary sources, which this article lacks. An article which presents a hoax (or suspected hoax) as though it's a real thing is a really bad idea. If it's possible to get good independent coverage of the hoax, one or two sentences about it in H class battleship proposals would be fine. bobrayner (talk) 15:37, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- There's nothing on this outside of Porter's book and the forum, which isn't exactly a reliable source. The H-45 isn't a hoax, strictly speaking, it was created as a sort of design study, and Porter simply didn't realize the nature of the forum. Parsecboy (talk) 14:52, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:26, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:26, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, who happens to be our resident expert on German naval history. However, it may be worth a sentence in H class battleship proposals ... something along the lines of "Porter, apparently taking his information from [forum], said ___, but there's no evidence for this." Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 19:01, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to H class battleship proposals. While a latter-day what-if creation, it does have some "presence" in Porter's work and "in the wild", as it were; acknowleding it in that article as a footnote-ish thing is worthwhile, IMHO. (And would also avoid the inevitible result otherwise of a napkinwaffe fan coming along and going "oh, there's no article on the H-45! I need to fix that...) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:01, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect per The Bushranger; it may be worth including a brief mention of this in the H class battleship article to set the record straight. Nick-D (talk) 22:41, 12 January 2013 (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.