Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HMS Forth (1813)


 * 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 per WP:SNOW. AfD is not for deleting articles in need of improvement. Mjroots (talk) 21:06, 17 May 2018 (UTC) )

HMS Forth (1813)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Stub that doesn't seem having the notability. –  333-blue  at 09:54, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 10:34, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 10:34, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep as notable warship per WP:MILUNIT, has enough coverage for a sail warship with a short career. Forth was a 'fir' frigate during the War of 1812 and captured six prizes per this source, technical data can be found here. In short, this is as notable as any of the contemporary Royal Navy fifth rate frigates. Kges1901 (talk) 10:49, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't know enough about notability of warships or military units to comment, and don't have time to read up now, but just wanted to add a quick explanation of why I created it. I am in the process of creating my first full Wikipedia article, on Captain Sir William Bolton, who commanded the ship for a couple of years (and had a family and personal relationship to Nelson), and came across the note about it on the HMS Forth disambiguation page. I thought that it was worth creating and was intending to come back to it to perhaps add a bit of detail later. But obviously happy to abide by whatever the consensus decision is. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 11:03, 17 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep. It is standard practice to keep all articles on warships of all sizes per WP:MILUNIT. Being a stub is not a criterion for deletion. Stubs get expanded. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:10, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * p.s. I've just had a quick read of Kges1901's links and I note Necrothesp's comments - thanks. I can use these to improve the article at a later date, if it stays. Can I leave it up to one of you to delete the note at the top about the deletion discussion, at some point? Laterthanyouthink (talk) 11:18, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * That will happen when someone (not us, but an uninvolved party) closes this discussion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:20, 17 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep per MILUNIT#4 as mentioned above. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:24, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep, per Necrothesp; meets notability. A warship commissioned in recognised naval forces. Kierzek (talk) 12:34, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep meets notability criteria per WP:SHIPS commissioned warship and over 100 tons Lyndaship (talk) 12:59, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. Not a valid deletion rationale - being a stub doesn't mean a subject is non-notable. Mostly warships of this size (who served during wartime one would note) - have ample sources - and a cursory BEFORE shows carious sources on this fir-frigate built for the 1812 war..Icewhiz (talk) 17:10, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep No valid deletion rationale given. Exemplo347 (talk) 17:29, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * KEEP Should not be deleted per WP:MILUNIT.  - zfJames Please add   to your reply on this page  (chat page, contribs, chat ) 19:27, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep - WP:SNOW --Quek157 (talk) 20:05, 17 May 2018 (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.