Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HMS Hornet
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. A disambig with red links is still valid. Sr13 23:44, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
HMS Hornet[edit]
Page of red links. Only one link exists, and that is to an article of dubious notability. There appears to be an attempt to have articles on every ship that existed regardless of notability, rather than articles on classes of ships breaking out into articles on most notable examples. Delete or Redirect to HMS Hornet (1854) SilkTork 07:37, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Warships are a significant part of military history, and books are frequently written about them. The solution to the redlink problem is to create articles about them, as long as we don't the page at least provides some info on when those ships existed. (I have not gone through each entry on the list to verify them, but [http://www.battleships-cruisers.co.uk/acheron.htm#HMS%20Hornet is a start for the 1911 destroyer.) Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:46, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Valid disambiguation page, Category:Disambiguation lists of ships has many more like it. Sandstein 09:50, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Grief! Has there been an attempt to clarify what ships are notable - and the decision was that a ship, by default, is notable? Should a military ship have at least seen some action to be notable? SilkTork 16:09, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There has been a broad consensus to this end for several years (Mar 2005, Feb 2005, Nov 2005, Sep 2005, Sep 2005, Jul 2006, Nov 2005, May 2006 - I couldn't find any more in a quick sweep. One trivial complaint, one copyvio-but-resolved, one erroneous merge result... but broad support for "keep, of course"). Given our inclusion standards have grown looser over time, I very much doubt that has changed. Shimgray | talk | 17:37, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Redlinks mean that new articles need to be written, not that existing pages need to be deleted. Nick mallory 10:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Warships are notable because they are warships, military equipment. A quick look through the military archives nad you should find something about it. However, since there are so many ships, I suggest that the article be written to conform better with the stands of a disambiguation page.--Kylohk 15:35, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep utterly valid disambiguation page, since the consensus is that naval vessels above a certain class are notable enough for an article. I'm not sure about the sloop, but the destroyers certainly merit inclusion, as does the 1805 ship. FrozenPurpleCube 20:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep A disambiguation page pointing to redlinks is still valid. I agree all Royal Navy warships are notable enough for inclusion. --Canley 07:00, 24 May 2007 (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.