Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/German submarine U-132


 * 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. I will close this early per WP:IAR since the rationale of the nominator's good faith nomination of a disambiguation page with all red links no longer applies as articles have been now been created for those links. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:40, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

German submarine U-132

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

When was the last time you saw a disambiguation page where all three of the pages it wanted to link you to were nonexistent? Raymie Humbert (local radar | current conditions) 05:13, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, instead of nominating it for deletion, why don't you do some Googling and then start articles on one or more of those links? One of the purposes of red links is to encourage people to start articles, i.e. help build the encyclopedia. Cla68 (talk) 05:53, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.  —Nick-D (talk) 07:22, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Articles will eventually be created on all three subs and this is a reasonable link until then. It would be trivial to create stubs on them. Nick-D (talk) 07:22, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I just created a stub on the most recent submarine of this name; it took me 10 minutes. Nick-D (talk) 07:41, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Is that supposed to be a criticism of the nominator? Please assume good faith.  It's wonderful that a dab page, that formerly linked to nothing, has been turned into something useful, but nobody is obligated to turn red-links into blue links.  Mandsford (talk) 21:06, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That takes quite a stretch of the imagination to turn either of Nick's comment (or even both together) into a failure to assume good faith… — Bellhalla (talk) 21:42, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep valid disambig. On top of that creator is known to actually produce those articles and bring them to FA Agathoclea (talk) 07:30, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - Spurious rationale Kernel Saunters (talk) 09:02, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Perfectly acceptable disambig page. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:11, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - vaild disambig, one article created and others likely to follow soon per creator's work. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 09:39, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. It is long-standing precedent that dab pages should only be created when there are at least three articles two disambiguate between (if it is two, hatnotes are preferred). With only one article in existence, there isn't yet anything to distinguish between. Create the article first, then the dab page later. - Mgm|(talk) 09:46, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That may be fine for disambiguation pages, but, technically, this is a set index page. Is what you say a policy in regard to disambiguation pages? If not, then WP:IAR should apply:
 * All submarines on similar pages are notable and articles are very likely to be created
 * The triple numbering system in use during World War I for German U-boats (U-nnn, UB-nnn, and UC-nnn, though this set index page did not have a UC boat) and the restart of numbering prior to World War II and post-WWII makes a page of this sort extremely useful for editors linking to these submarines from various articles
 * Take a look at German submarine U-1 for an example that has all of these boats, plus another U-1 from the Austro-Hungarian Navy. — Bellhalla (talk) 12:00, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep under WP:SNOW. No redlinks now — Bellhalla (talk) 12:00, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep --Jim Sweeney (talk) 14:29, 30 March 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.