Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CVN-80


 * 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   merge to Gerald R. Ford class aircraft carrier.  Sandstein  17:45, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

CVN-80

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Per WP:HAMMER this carrier is "tentatively scheduled to be commissioned in 2021", a decade from now, is un-named, and since none of the ships in this class have been completed, all of the data, from the speed to the complement to the number of aircraft are all just projections.  S ven M anguard  Wha?  15:36, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.  Logan Talk Contributions 17:00, 8 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Gerald R. Ford class aircraft carrier, at least until such time as more confirmed information comes along. The designation isn't going to change, so the redirect makes sense. This vessel will undoubtedly be notable upon its completion, and perhaps during actual construction - but I agree, it's way way way too early. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 17:53, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge to Gerald R. Ford class. There are a couple of listed sources in the article as well as the proposed name that should be preserved. If not then redirect. CVN's 79 and 80 are not even listed in the NVR yet. Brad (talk) 20:18, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 22:00, 8 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Merge and redirect to Gerald R. Ford-class aircraft carrier, per the above - logical redirect, near 100% certainty ship will be built as a Ford class carrier. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:40, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * merge and redirect as above. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:44, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect per the above posts. It doesn't seem possible to write anything about this ship at the moment. Nick-D (talk) 22:48, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep While commissioning will occur in 2021, other milestones will be reached in just a few years. It meets WP:GNG and I see no harm in leaving it as a stub in the interim years. Safiel (talk) 06:38, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, I'd think that would be a really good argument for waiting and creating the article later, when there is something more substantial to report - and, more importantly, when there will be more sources on which to base the article. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 14:44, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep There's enough information already. Public discussion over the name of a ship that has been definitely announced is sufficient  DGG ( talk ) 11:04, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge/Redirect to parent class article - not independently notable yet. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:46, 15 December 2011 (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.