Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison between HMS King George V and USS North Carolina


 * 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   delete. in regards of WP:IINFO and WP:NOT. Much of the Keep arguments were rather weak. JForget 00:38, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Comparison between HMS King George V and USS North Carolina

 * – (View AfD (View log  •  AfD statistics)

Oh my, my, my. Another comparison between battleship classes. I'm glad I got my university work finished ahead of schedule yesterday, since it enables me to take on last look at Wikipedia prior to my finals and graduation.

As for this article, there are a lot of problems with it. And I do mean a lot. So lets delve into the reasons why this needs to axed: It is for the reasons that I move that we deleted this page as soon as possible. Help me send a message to all our contributors that we will not tolerate these articles on our site, nor we will accept their drama and conflict. Delete this article, ladies and gentlemen. To allow it leave another week speaks poorly to our ability to uphold our own policies and guidelines. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:44, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * First, this is in open violation of the NPOV policy. Comparing battleship class 1 and battleship class 2 does not provide a neutral assessment of the battleships in a fleet at the time, nor does it fully take into account the matter of other nation's battleship. Neutrality demands that all nations get an equal share of the comparison. Creating such an article would be a waste of resources on Wikipedia.
 * Secondly, we have had this discussion before. It caused a lot of trouble. It created a lot of drama. It cost the project a valuable member. It created a lot of interesting theories. Worst of all, it took WAY too long to address the issue correctly. I am ashamed to admit that I had a big hand in all this, it is and remains one of my worst moments in my time on Wikipedia. For what its worth, I did manage to redeem myself eventually. Since all this went down I have penned explicit instructions concerning comparisons sections based on the incident. Whats true of one article should be true of all: Leave them out. No exceptions.
 * Third, this is in open violation of our Original Research policy. Short of actually having a documented battle between these two classes everything in the article is based on educated guesswork, and while it may be educated the fact remains that guesswork is guesswork. Since all ships in both classes are now razorblades or rust piles we will never know. Not withstanding paper statistics there are other matters that a comparison could never hope to take into account. After the loss of HMS Audacious Admiral Sir John Jellico developed a near phobia of German anti-ship mines, and in this fear in part caused him to let the German High Seas Fleet escape: he thought they may have been attempting to lure the British fleet into a mine field. At the Battle of Jutland a number of British ships were loss due to powder magazine explosions thought to have resulted in inadequate safety measures to keep burning embers out of the powder chute. I guareetee that would not have been a factor in paper analysis, we only know about it from the actual combat action these ships saw. All the statistical comparisons in the world would not be able to detect this. The bottom line: its got no cite-able backbone to stay.
 * Fourth, the ship class articles themselves can serve as a comparison. One of the main goals of Operation Majestic Titan is to create a "we report, you decide" nature with the articles: we will report the strengths and weakness in the articles with citations to second and third party sources, and leave it to others to decide how they ships would have measured up in combat. Articles like this defeat the whole purpose of both OMT and Wikipedia.
 * Fifth, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. So we are comparing numbers. So what? Our ships templates can do the same thing in half the space with a greater investment return by adding histories, service records, armor and armament info, etc. If the article adheres to WP:NOT, you must delete it without a second thought!
 * Sixth, other have covered the same territory already. Cases in point: Battleship Comparison, WWII Battleship :: Iowa Bismark Yamato. If I can find these then surely somewhere out there a comparison on these two ships must already exist. Add a link in the class articles to these site and let the off site the debate begin.
 * Seventh, this invites a ton of articles here all with a comparison between class-a and class-b, which wastes space. We don't need these kinds of articles clogging up our site with information already presented elsewhere, no do we need the nationalism, drama, or warring over the articles this invites. Keep everything in one nice little place or we are going to end up with (for lack of a better term) "comparison-cruft" pages. Shelling this beachhead now ensures that we crush such an invasion before its members get organized move on to other articles like tanks, bombers, missiles, etc.


 * So much of the above is simply irrelevant and OR driven that it is hard to respond to.
 * This article was created from data that was collected and analysed by the both the USN and the Royal Navy in WW2, and is now in the public domain. The Royal Navy had full access to the ships involved including access to both Navy's design teams and the information was presented and analysed by Norman Friedman, in his book, US battleships There is NO guess work involved. None! And I will repeat this for emphasis, the data was collected by access to both RN and USN official records, RN and USN design teams and by physical access to the ships during WW2. The article is valuable because it presented this data without bias during WW2 and as such is a valuable look as the two designs where such variables as armour and machinery weight could be calculated on the same basis, rather than being simple estimates. It is an invaluable and insightful article that reveals the design trade-offs by the two navy's. It should not be deleted and the basis for wanting it deleted is simply unwarranted. The article has not been subject to edit warring nor has even received unfavourable comments in its discussion page.
 * ''1) data was collected during WW2 with full access to both ships and is in the public domain
 * 2) The data has been analysed and presented by an eminent and respected naval historian.
 * 3)It is completely unlike the comparisons TomStar81 is referring to, such as between Yamato and Iowa because any such comparison must involve OR due to the fact that the IJN and USN did not have access to each others records and the Yamato class did not survive the war for design teams to evaluate it.
 * 4)The article does not draw conclusion as the relative combat power of each ship and merely confines itself to presenting data on non subjective matters such as dimensions, weight and speed, nor does it attempt any other subjective analysis.''
 * This attempt at censorship should not be allowed and this article should not be deleted and should be allowed to stand as is, as an aid to the study of Naval History, and as such will be of interest to persons studying the results of the Washington Naval Treaty on Battleship design and on the relative design priorities of the USN and RN prior to WW2.Damwiki1 (talk) 22:48, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * So, if I am reading your reply right, instead of adding the material to the articles where its presence could help the push for FA class we need a whole new article with what is essentially a chart of information in the North Carolin class and King George IV class articles because the article is cited to three sources and can not be covered by bring the latter two articles up to FA status, and we should interpret WP:OR, WP:NOT, and WP:NPOV as being in favor such an article by overlooking the fact that two previous attempts to place this type of information of wikipedia resulted in an edit war that lead to the depature of a user who was caught in the cross fire. Is this right, or was there more to the argument? 76.211.107.188 (talk) 23:40, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * This article is based upon a wartime study done by the RN, with USN participation, between these two classes and then presented by a respected naval historian, it is not based upon an eclectic gathering of information from various sources and of dubious comparative validity and this is why it is unique and deserves it's own article.Damwiki1 (talk) 23:55, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

It seems that some people here have not even read the article and/or understood some of the key points:
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:22, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment, does the subject of the article meet notability to warrant its own article? Individually there is no argument that both classes of vessels are notable; however as a stand-alone article about comparison between two vessels, citing three references, even if it does so significantly in depth, I have to wonder.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:29, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No. Anything that can be summed in in chart on two separate pages doesn't really deserve its own page. 76.211.107.188 (talk) 23:40, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It is certainly notable to anyone interested in the study of naval history and the effects of the WNT on warship design. This study is unique in its access to data due to the close alliance of the RN and USN during WW2, and the ability of the study's authours to properly compare the vessels in question and thus merits it's own article. Reading the articles on each battleship class separately cannot provide this kind of analysis, since, for example each navy had differing methods of calculating armour weight, and a true comparison cannot be done without extensive access to design information, which the authours of the study were in a unique position to do, yet the data obtained cannot be presented properly in either battleship class's main article because it is only valid in comparison to the other ship- to be valid it can only be presented a separate article.Damwiki1 (talk) 23:47, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, hardly a problem with NPOV, but not an encyclopedic article or list: this is a valid subject of study, but it doesn't belong in this encyclopedia. Nyttend (talk) 23:56, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The data is invaluable for the study of naval history and the study of the KGV class battleships, but it cannot be presented in the main article for that class for the reasons stated above. The article should be retained.Damwiki1 (talk) 00:14, 7 December 2009 (UTC
 * Source: U.S. battleships: an illustrated design history, Friedman, p278 and "taken from ADM 1/15578 in the Public Record Office, Kew".
 * The information is from US Battleships, by Norman Friedman. The data was produced during WW2 by the RN Director of Naval Construction to explore the differences between RN and USN Battleships as there were concerns that the RN was falling behind it's foriegn counterparts in battleship design. Specifically there were concerns that the USN had produced a more powerful ship on the same displacement. The RN study made with full access to USN records and physical access to USN battleships showed, however, that the USN had achieved more fire power and range, by reductions in armour and speed while the USN torpedo protection was designed to protect against a much smaller warhead. The RN study argued that the USN had given up too much in the way of protection to achieve greater fire power and range. The data is invaluable for the understanding and study of the KGV and NC classes but just doesn't fit into either class's main article.


 * Support Delete. The article is a POV-fork for the various articles related to the KGV class, which were already suffering from the fanatic 'setting things right' mentality by the creator of the the comparison article, (talk). As it is, the specific article in question contains little more than just a table, the subject of comparison itself is not an encyclopedic content, but dealt on numerous websites for the better or worse.. worst of all, any such article is a can of worms and a magnet for other POV-warriors. Besides as pointed out, if anyone wants to compare numbers, its easy to do by just using the data boxes of the two battleship classes. You don't need a seperate article for listing pretty much the same tables on one page... Kurfürst (talk) 00:50, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You cannot compare numbers that are calculated on a separate basis. For example, comparing machinery weights and deriving things as weight per SHP, a measure of machinery efficiency, is impossible unless the machinery weights can be calculated on a common basis, as the RN comparison was able to do. I should note that Kurfurst has been suspended on several occasions for edit warring and seems intent on stirring things up here as well. His remarks are highly offensive. Damwiki1 (talk) 01:14, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions.  --  Fences  &amp;  Windows  02:00, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. A juxtaposition of two ships that is unsupported by sources, and thus WP:SYNTH. We need to stick to what the sources say about comparisons between ships and navies rather than playing Top Trumps on Wikipedia. Fences  &amp;  Windows  02:04, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * To be fair, these comparisons are (I believe) all sourced to Norman Friedman's United States Battleships: A Design History. — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  02:12, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete, but this is an interesting controversy; I didn't realize there would be a chance for POV-pushing in battleship articles. This one isn't doing that, mostly because it is made up of only the table, but I'm sure that if this article is allowed, it'll lead to all sorts of comparisons, the most scary of which is Iowa vs. Yamato. Regards, — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  02:12, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I keep forgetting that you and MBK were not around for round 1. It was ugly; trust me, I know this from personal experience. That experience is what compels me to move on this matter, I fear if no action is taken a rerun of the 05-07 Iowa class battleship edit war will eventually erupt. Not that we couldn't ride out such a storm, but since I know its coming I am moving to sail our fleet away from the storm before it strikes us. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:39, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Unlike Halsey, I see. ;-) — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  02:42, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Correct :) TomStar81 (Talk) 02:54, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * TomStar81 have you read Friedman's US Battleships? It sounds like you haven't.Damwiki1 (talk) 03:50, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete this information belongs on a third party website, not Wikipedia. Wikipedia doesn't (that I know of) make comparisons between two different things, and thus this article is not needed. If it is kept, there might end up being a sleu of articles that are created based on comparisons. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:44, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * This isn't really a workable article format (1 vs. 1, very table heavy), but there is a potential merge to Battleships in World War II; ultimately that page or a relevant subpage should describe the approaches taken by the major powers in designing battleships. I would probably move this to a subpage there to sit until it can be appropriately integrated. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:34, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. This is quite amazing.  It is as if most of those commenting have only glanced at the article.  The article is 100% cited.  There is no original research.  Unfortunately Wikipedia has far too few properly sourced tables.  A tale that can be referenced by several articles is most useful.  Most of the numeric information only makes sense if you compare between designs.--Toddy1 (talk) 05:10, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment, perhaps this can be merged into the article regarding the Washington Naval Treaty, or Naval Architecture, or something relating to the subject matter it's supports have said that it falls under. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:21, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I was actually thinking about that, from where I sit the information presented could be added to reinforce citations in both the King George IV and North Carolina class articles. I have no objections to a merge if others agree to it. TomStar81 (Talk) 15:18, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:IINFO. Nick-D (talk) 06:54, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * There is nothing in WP:IINFO that justifies deletion, and none of the criteria stated apply.Damwiki1 (talk) 09:35, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Number 3: "Long and sprawling lists of statistics may be confusing to readers and reduce the readability and neatness of our articles. In addition, articles should contain sufficient explanatory text to put statistics within the article in their proper context for a general reader." The article in its current state does not do that at all. Parsecboy (talk) 11:52, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong delete per WP:IINFO. The creator of this article might want to state policy or guidelines which justify his defence of the article rather than "OMGITSCENSORSHIP". Ironholds (talk) 12:50, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - not encyclopedic in any conceivable way. May as well create Comparison between lawn mowers and hair dryers. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:12, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That would be useful, actually; it might explain why my blowdryer uses gasoline and I haven't paid a barber since I got it. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:52, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - while this might be interesting, it certainly seems to be a very, very specific comparison that would seem to go farther than might otherwise be done in an encyclopedia. I agree that WP:IINFO is an issue here. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:52, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - The spirit of WP:IINFO applies here. I just don't see this as being encyclopaedic. Benea (talk) 00:43, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete a comparison is a subjective judgement based on the facts of the two ships mentioned. It is not for Wikipedia to present a subjective comparison as fact, but for the books the article cites. SGGH ping! 18:37, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not encyclopedic. If a report on the comparing the battleships were commissioned during the war, and that report had a significant impact on battleship construction, or served as a major reference for study of warship design generally, or was still cited in modern warship design, an article about that report might be appropriate.  One could ask the question "What was the thus-and-such report?" and find the answer, and then further information on the subject, here.  One cannot do that with this article. Also, in my opinion, the article has a thesis ("Since both the USN and RN were tasked with building the same class of vessel, the comparison reveals differences in design philosophy..."), supporting evidence (the chart), and a conclusion ("the USN had achieved more fire power and range, by reductions..."), making it in the end, an essay. Some jerk on the Internet (talk) 19:57, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong keep The passion of the nominator seems unwarranted. We have many comparisons on Wikipedia, see Category:Comparisons, Category:Computing comparisons in particular. They are considered quite useful by those with interest in the subjects covered, as I think this article would be. The information here is sourced and hardly an unrelated colletion of facts. There are only a limited number of battleship classes from WW II, so this comparison could easily be expanded to cover them all. The fact that other sites have similar info is no reason to exclude it here, quite the contrary -- it shows interest.--agr (talk) 20:31, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I will disagree with your comment about the limited number of WWII battleship classes (assuming that means those that served, not that were constructed during WWII). Of the top of my head I can list about twenty and upon further examination could probably double the number. About half of the classes that are under the scope of WP:OMT are WWII. -MBK004 00:14, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Twenty is not an unreasonable number for a comparison article. See Comparison of Internet Relay Chat services for example. And the classes included could be further limited to ships laid down after 1930, say. As those battleships represent a pinnacle of warship design, such a comparison article would be very interesting. I'd also add, in response to previous comments, that conclusionary statements are easily removed if they can't be attributed to published sources. Such editorial shortcomings, unless insurmountable, are not a basis for article deletion. --agr (talk) 01:29, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Not encyclopedic, inappropriate content for an encyclopedia. Although I admit the concept of a Comparison of Wikipedia and Britannica page might be hilarious. Ray  Talk 01:25, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Not encyclopaedic per WP:IINFO. Hohum (talk) 19:01, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep A useful snippet of fully referenced history that will be lost to the world if we delete it. A good historical table I would find very useful. This is not WP:OR Mike Young (talk) 19:04, 12 December 2009 (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.