Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HMS Duke of Edinburgh


 * 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 of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 01:35, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

HMS Duke of Edinburgh
'''See Below for amended view following work on article from others Not been changed or updated since June, and no attempt to explain if this is a notable entry. Mention of this ship could be made on another article rather than a separate stub entry. doktorb 11:16, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Obviously I see this nomination has got the best out of Wiki - great to see the amendments and additions to the article. I have no hesitation in asking for the original delete nomination to be withdrawn; or for those who need to know to be assured I see no reason now why this article cannot be kept. Thank you to all the great people helping out. doktorb 21:04, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Weak delete, as this currently has no content whatsoever. That said, my gut says that warships are notable (although I'm not sure I could articulate why), but this article has no content besides the name and the stub tag. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 14:52, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Warships are notable because they fulfil the same primary notability criterion that we use for people, companies, web sites, and other things: Multiple separate people, independent of the subject, have written and published works of their own about them, demonstrating that they find the subject notable enough that they have gone to the effort of creating and publishing works of their own about it. People write books, produce television documentaries, and set up web sites about warships.  Uncle G 16:13, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me. Given that it's no longer a microstub that does nothing but restate the title, my vote is now keep. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 16:18, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete, warships are indeed notable, but this article restates something which is evident from the title, which is a speedy criterion. - Mgm|(talk) 15:34, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep the rewrite no longer makes it speedy material. Please keep in mind the difference between a stub and a substub. The first is useful, the second is not. - Mgm|(talk) 09:43, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep we learned about this one in history. Just make a stub until someone puts in some more info. 203.122.218.47 15:59, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
 * As per the article and the notability criterion outlined above, keep. Uncle G 16:13, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep &mdash; Most valid military warships of cruiser class or larger are highly notable. If this was a patrol boat, for example, you might have a good argument. But this is not even remotely close to meeting deletion criteria, particularly following the expansion. &mdash; RJH 17:36, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep there are a great many articles about various classes of warships on Wikipedia.--Nicodemus75 18:21, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep and expand, but rename to HMS Duke of Edinburgh (UK ship). User:Zoe|(talk) 23:08, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Perhaps HMS Duke of Edinburgh (cruiser) might be more appropriate? I am unsure what the existing conventions on articles on ships are, but in some cases ships of different classes carried the same names at different points in history.--Nicodemus75 23:25, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
 * See Naming conventions (ships). The name, were there another ship article by this name and disambiguation were needed, would be HMS Duke of Edinburgh (1904). Uncle G 00:35, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
 * This rename would be akin to "President of the United States George W. Bush (US President)"; it's clumsy and unneeded, since a vessel noted HMS is inherently a "UK ship"... However, some reading suggests it was later used as the proposed name for a cancelled carrier, so I'll move and disambiguate the page to (1904) per convention when this AFD closes. (Keep, by the way) Shimgray | talk | 16:03, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Ejrrjs | What? 23:39, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep I've tidied the article up a bit, we may need further discussion about which warships are inherently notable, but I've seen a lot of articles on warships. In the light of this, I suggest that, at the very least, all cruisers and larger in the world's major navies which saw active service in 1 of the 2 world wars are inherently notable. PatGallacher 01:36, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't think that there's a need to formulate a specific criterion. The multiple published works from independent sources criterion is a relatively general criterion that works for ships as well as it does for people, bands, companies, products, software packages, and web sites.  The criterion that you describe is a simple and direct consequence of its application.  "All cruisers and larger in the world's major navies which saw active service in 1 of the 2 world wars" are notable because plenty of people independent of the subjects have published works of their own (written books, produced documentaries, created web sites, and so forth) that cover that very set of ships.  (See the very sources cited by this article, for example.)  The set of what is notable is already established by the world at large, and the multiple published works from independent sources notability criterion simply reflects that. What is needed is for the editors who are creating these ship articles to cite sources.  None of the ones that I looked at cited any sources whatsoever.  In practice, it is very rare for articles that have citations of multiple published works from independent sources to even come to AFD in the first place, let alone be deleted.  Indeed, the simple act of citing such sources has on several occasions changed people's opinions from "delete" to "keep".  I strongly urge the editors of these ship articles, and indeed all editors with pet projects, to cite sources in all of their articles. Uncle G 14:04, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Well said. There are a number of editors who use "notable" to mean "sufficiently important/interesting/signficiant to have multiple independent references," and having those references right there in the article makes all the difference. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 14:16, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep the expanded version. Sjakkalle (Check!)  09:19, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, definately notable! Thelb 4  19:06, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep mere mention of deletion has generated article extension and get that move done so the navbox works.GraemeLeggett 21:07, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep verified -- red stucco 09:30, 17 November 2005 (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.