Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Active Royal Navy Vessels in 1982


 * 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. ‑Scottywong | comment _ 23:36, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Active Royal Navy Vessels in 1982

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Do we really need this article? I don't think having Active ships per year is such a good idea, too much effort maintaining it. This article is an orphan so nothing links here - rather delete IMO it as all the info is available on other pages Gbawden (talk) 10:55, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 27 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep We don't seem to need this nomination because, if this information is covered elsewhere, there are sensible alternatives to deletion per our editing policy. Andrew (talk) 12:27, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not even heads of state get listed by year, and they're much more time-critical. Ships? Noooo. The simple fact that they're in commission at a certain date is unnotable. (The article doesn't even match its own title: it includes ships "being planned or under construction".) I'd say WP:NOTDIRECTORY. What next? Shopping centers open in 1982? Clarityfiend (talk) 13:30, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Weak keep Given that these were the ships available for the Falklands War, the article seems useful. Nick-D (talk) 03:13, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * So, are you volunteering to create Active Royal Navy vessels in 1789, Active Royal Navy vessels in 1812, Active Royal Navy vessels in 1939, etc.? Clarityfiend (talk) 04:31, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Not at the moment, but those would be good ideas for articles, and dedicated sources on those topics exist. Nick-D (talk) 11:45, 2 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 20:33, 6 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - I am not persuaded by the maintenance argument; because, since this is a year gone by nothing will change unlike List of active Royal Navy ships for example. The connection with the ships available for the Falklands War is an interesting concept. I think a restructure to make that link more direct, or perhaps a merge somewhere, would be a good idea but, meanwhile, I see no reason for deletion. The Whispering Wind (talk) 15:32, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep or Merge. As a concept for an article, I think this is reasonable, and certainly reference exist (a number of which are cited on the page) to verify this information and satisfy WP:N.  But, the title is terrible (nobody is ever going to type that into a search box), and it's an orphan, so as a practical matter, it's unreachable.    Not to mention that, as pointed out by others, the title is just plain wrong, since the article includes ships under construction, etc.  So, I think we need to find a better title (Royal Navy in 1982, perhaps), and make sure it's linked into the appropriate places, such as Falklands War.  Alternatively, just merge there.   -- RoySmith (talk) 02:35, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 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.