Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HMS Incomparable


 * 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 no consensus. Opinion is divided about whether the mentions of the ship in some literature are enough to pass WP:GNG. That's not something for me to decide by fiat. Perhaps editors should wait until the poor Incomparable becomes shipgirlified in Japan, at which point there will be reams of anime and manga to draw upon as sources ...  Sandstein  12:14, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

HMS Incomparable

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article on an unbuilt battlecruiser is not notable. The ship is not listed in any of the essential references on ships of its type in the Royal Navy. Not Silverstone's Directory of the World's Capital Ships, not Gardiner & Gray's Conway's All the World's Fighting Ships 1906–1922, not Breyer's Battleships and Battlecruisers 1905–1970, not Roberts' British Battlecruisers 1905–1920, not Parkes' British Battleships 1860–1950, nor Friedman's British Battleships 1906–1946. There are, however, a few paragraphs on it in Sumida's In Defence of Naval Supremacy, but they merely discuss Admiral Sir Jackie Fisher's proposals, neither of which were accepted by the Royal Navy, nor even granted a design review by its naval architect, the Director of Naval Construction. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:07, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

WP:Ships and WP:MilHist have been notified.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:18, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This rationale isn't actually true. It is in the Breyer book. The Land (talk) 07:49, 26 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete a few mentions in one book, and a website of questionable reliability is all I can find on this. Maybe upmerge basic information to another article, but there is not enough here to support a stand-alone article.  -- Jayron 32 14:17, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete per above-mentioned rationales. Llammakey (talk) 14:36, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The above-mentioned rationales include other ideas such as merger. Please see WP:PERX. Andrew D. (talk) 14:39, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes and I am choosing the delete option provided and ignoring the upmerge option as I see no point in keeping just Fisher's designs. This seems fancrufty in my opinion by giving undue weight to Fisher over all other ship designers. Llammakey (talk) 16:02, 21 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep As it wasn't built then it's not surprising that it doesn't appear in all those books of battleships that were built. But, that's irrelevant because it still passes WP:GNG as there's coverage in multiple other books, including the fine picture which we are able to use too.  The worst case would be merger into some more general page such as battlecruiser and so, per WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE, there is no case for deletion. Andrew D. (talk) 14:39, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Most, but not all, of the books listed above, do indeed cover unbuilt designs to some degree, so the lack of coverage is significant. If it had gotten some sort of official sanction then it would probably be worth merging, but without... The picture is from Fisher's own book, so lacks any weight in this discussion, IMO.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:10, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
 * No, Fisher is a pre-eminent figure in the field – second only to Nelson – and so all their works are notable per WP:BKCRIT. Andrew D. (talk) 15:48, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Fisher was not a trained naval architect; he pushed the DNC into designing HMS Dreadnought around his specifications and that didn't happen with time. The 1912 iteration of this idea was powered by diesels and he dropped it when informed by engine designers that diesels lacked the power efficiency to reach his desired speed in the size hull that he proposed. So very much a layman.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:35, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
 * He was First Sea Lord and so not a layman; more the man in charge. Andrew D. (talk) 17:28, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Andrew, BKCRIT does not mean what you're using it to mean. Oh, and as far as designing ships goes, yes, Fisher was a layman. You might as well argue that the CEO of AEP is qualified to design a nuclear reactor because he's the CEO of a major electricity provider. Parsecboy (talk) 17:39, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Andrew, you have brought up a series of non-sequiturs. Whoever Fisher was has zero bearing on whether or not Wikipedia should keep this article.  The only thing that matters is having sufficient, reliable, in-depth source material about the subject which people could use to write an encyclopedia article with.  Several people have noted the insufficiency of that source material.  The only hope you have of keeping the article is to present that source material.  Since you are arguing to keep, I presume you've seen that source material and could share it with us.  You could go a long way towards convincing people this was a keepable topic by presenting the source material that would prove it so.  If that source material doesn't exist, no amount of arguing could save it.  It's not what you say that matters here, it's what you can prove with sources.  Can you present in-depth source material about this topic or not? -- Jayron 32 17:47, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
 * (ec) Yes it does. It means that when you have a really major figure then all of their works are notable because their stature means that there will be interest in them.  My !vote stands. Andrew D. (talk) 17:51, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Read it again, Andrew. The guideline you're citing covers the notability of a given book. If we were arguing whether Fisher's book is notable or not, then that would be a relevant guideline to cite. But we're not. Parsecboy (talk) 18:01, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I never asked you to change your vote. You've asserted there is sufficient source material about this ship.  Can you provide that source material to us so we can review it?  All that you need to do to convince other people that this article should be kept is provide the source material.  It's a simple thing.  I'm just informing you that if you want your vote to matter you'd actually present source material here for us to review.  If you're OK with this article being deleted against your wishes, by all means, keep refusing to show us the source material.  It's not what you say, or what your vote is, it is the existence of source material that matters.  If you have that source material, present it here.  Links, books, something.  Give us something to use to keep the article for.  -- Jayron 32 17:58, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The person trying to make a case here is the nominator, who has proposed that this interesting page be deleted so that no-one can read it anymore (it has already had over 50K readers). The onus is therefore on the nominator to do the main work per WP:BEFORE. If they fail to do so and establish a consensus for their proposal, the status quo will prevail.  They have listed a bunch of sources which don't include the topic but that's rather weak negative evidence.  All that the WP:GNG requires is a couple of sources with significant coverage which are independent and reliable.  We have this in the sources In Defence of Naval Supremacy: Finance, Technology, and British Naval Policy 1889-1914  and Churchill and Fisher: The titans at the Admiralty who fought the First World War.  So, the WP:GNG is satisfied and, in any case, that's only a weak guideline compared to major policies like WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD which state clearly that "Preserve appropriate content. As long as any facts or ideas would belong in an encyclopedia, they should be retained in Wikipedia. ... If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page."  There are some other arguments floating around like the suggestion that Fisher was a layman and that this design concept was just a napkin doodle.  Those arguments are false .  Fisher was a professional naval officer and his Incomparable project extended over several years with its design evolving from an enthusiasm for diesel engines to the final 20" gun version.  So, I've heard all the arguments for deletion and none of them stand up to close inspection.  They are based neither on policy nor on fact.  My !vote stands and as it is the most cogently reasoned from policy, it should carry the most weight.  Q.E.D. Andrew D. (talk) 20:56, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
 * A few passing mentions in books about other topics is not "significant coverage". Compare this article to Design 1047 battlecruiser, where you'll find a 30-page article about the specific design. That is "significant coverage". Inclusion in standard warship references like Conway's All the World's Fighting Ships is "significant coverage". Parsecboy (talk) 12:28, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
 * No, WP:SIGCOV defines this: "addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." These criteria are fully satisfied and so we're good.  My !vote stands. Andrew D. (talk) 13:35, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
 * A paragraph or two in a 400-page book is a trivial mention. In no way does that pass the bar. Parsecboy (talk) 13:47, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
 * We have more than a paragraph or two. Most ships don't have entire books written about them and so we have numerous entries for ships where the material is just part of a book.  The key point is that we have enough to verify the facts of the matter.  If the resulting article is small, this is not a problem.  It is quite normal for an encyclopedia to have a brief entry on such a topic.  The main point of an encyclopedia is to cover everything and not leave gaps.  We're not here to write massive screeds; we're here to cover all knowledge in a summary style.  My !vote stands. Andrew D. (talk) 13:59, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Do we? All of the references I've seen have been a paragraph or two (or generally, less than that). Very much passing mentions. Yes, we are an encyclopedia. But you seem to have a misapprehension as to what that means. We don't cover everything. We cover notable topics.
 * What's more, Sumida refers to Fisher's design as a battleship, not a battlecruiser. It appears there are at least two different designs being conflated here, which suggests either one is more obscure than a face-value evaluation of the sources would indicate. Parsecboy (talk) 15:18, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
 * As already noted, Fisher used this name for a design concept which evolved over several years. Readers who come across the name will expect a full explanation not some fragmented fork or a gaping hole. My !vote stands. Andrew D. (talk) 07:59, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * You keep telling us that your vote stands - is that supposed to convince someone of something? You have asserted much, but you have proved nothing. Parsecboy (talk) 11:48, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * My position is supported by policy and evidence, as stated. In stating that my !vote stands, I am affirming that my position has not changed as a result of another editor's contrary riposte.  Andrew D. (talk) 08:10, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:10, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:10, 21 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep per Andrew D. Oh, and Sea Control Ship -or- Merge to Fisher per Patar knight -  wolf  15:13, 21 September 2018 (UTC)/07:03, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The SCS was a real design by trained naval architects and deserves an article. Not the situation with Incomparable.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:37, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
 * So... you're saying the two pages are "incomparable"? ;-) - wolf  21:05, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
 * It should be noted, Thewolfchild, that you've added nothing extra to the discussion on the deletion of this article. That article is about a different thing.  It has no bearing on whether or not this article should be kept.  All that matters with regard to keeping THIS article is whether there is sufficient, reliable, source material to write a reasonable encyclopedia article with.  You've presented no additional source material to indicate that there may be, and several people have indicated the insufficiency of existing source material.  If you did want it kept, you'd spend some time finding quality sources.  -- Jayron 32 17:43, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
 * It should be noted, Jayron32, that my contribution here is that I agree with the comments made by Andrew D. who has so far, and by far, made the strongest case, and that I noted we have other articles (yes, plural) on proposed ship designs that never came to fruition, such as the SCS that I cited as an example. I don't have to "spend time finding quality sources" as the article already satisfies GNG. Obviously you disagree, as indicated by your stern lecture here, but that hardly constitutes as "nothing". Have a nice day. - wolf  21:05, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. The design is not notable, unlike some other ships that were never built. A passing reference like this in Sumida's book (which refers to the ship as a battleship, not a battlecruiser) is not sufficient to pass GNG. Consider this one, which describes the project in this way: "When he doodled, he drew plans of imaginary battleships, a habit he shared with the Kaiser and with Adolf Hitler. I have one of these doodles in front of me now. The ship is to be called H.M.S. Incomparable, and is drawn with tremendous gusto in a sort of slapdash detail, scribbled amendments in every corner of the sheet, sometimes crossed out, sometimes heavily underlined, and conveying an effervescent impression of spontaneous invention." I saw somewhere once the argument that we don't need articles on every "napkin-waffe" the Germans dreamt up in the closing days of WWII - this is exactly the nature of the Incomparable design. It was never a serious proposal (unlike TWC's Sea Control Ship example), and it is not covered in any detail in the sort of references that one would expect. Parsecboy (talk) 17:39, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete - back of the envelope sketch. Does not rise to sufficient level of notability to be presented as a separate article. Buckshot06 (talk) 18:06, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete A look at Google Books indicates it does not have significant coverage in multiple reliable sources independent of the subject, and thus fails GNG. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:00, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep - Breyer's Battleships and Battlecruisers 1905–1970 mentions it on p.172 and states that "designs were produced on the drawing boards" and that the design "was completed in the spring of 1915". Furthermore there is a plan on page 173 which the author has created from official drawings. I get the feeling that as Breyer mentions it there is more in the archives than has been published so far and bearing in mind the other RS the nominator mentions are primarily about ships built not considered and abandoned it is not surprising Incomparable does not feature. I would suggest that the article is renamed to HMS Incomparable proposal or project or design Lyndaship (talk) 09:13, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Huh, it wasn't named in the index, so good find.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:29, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Tentative Delete The article (largely without inline cites) gives only Breyer as a source, as it did when first written - I don't have access to the book, but does the substantive content come from that one source - or are there also significant unsourced additions by editors? Does Breyer give his sources? Either way, the sourcing is below requirements, and it is not for us to speculate on what other material might exist that nobody has written about. The project is briefly covered in the Fisher article (again, sourced to Beyer) and those two lines could be expanded a little without creating imbalance. Davidships (talk) 10:29, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Breyer doesn't give sources and the article appears to have pulled most of the information for the infobox from somewhere else, particularly the dimensions, propulsion and range figures. It might be worth expanding the mention in the Fisher article if this isn't kept.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:29, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
 * What exactly does Breyer have on the subject? Parsecboy (talk) 12:36, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I'll scan the relevant page and send it to you.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:11, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 11:48, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't claim this as RS but it appears knowledgeable and he does give some links to primary sources at the foot of the article  Lyndaship (talk) 12:43, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
 * If we're relying on archival material that hasn't been published, that's fairly strong indication that we shouldn't have an article on the subject. Wikipedia should be quarried primarily from secondary sources, and certainly not unpublished primary materials. Parsecboy (talk) 12:36, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I accept your point but given that Breyer is RS cannot this non RS web article quoting primary sources support the grounds for keeping the article? Also just come across this in google books Lyndaship (talk) 13:13, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
 * No, non-RS websites are not useful in determining the notability of a topic. I also wouldn't place much weight on Fisher's book - it's obviously not independent of the subject. Parsecboy (talk) 15:18, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. I'm struggling to understand why it is problematic to have an article on a preliminary design that never went forward. If it's sourcable, then it meets GNG. SpinningSpark 16:50, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The question is not the information, the question is if there is enough sourceable information to make a stand-alone article the best way to organize it. What we've got so far could be sufficiently covered in, say, the article on Fisher.  If you read this article, most of it is WP:OR and when we pare down the unreferenced or unreferenceable stuff, you've got a few lines of text.  There doesn't need to be a separate article for everything, the information can be WP:PRESERVED by simply writing about it in a more appropriate article.  -- Jayron 32</b> 15:23, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Merge to John_Fisher,_1st_Baron_Fisher. No reason why this content has to be deleted when there's a perfectly valid merge target that already mentions this ship proposal. Patar knight - chat/contributions 18:47, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. Satisfies GNG. James500 (talk) 02:47, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Question for you deleters, or a closing admin should they be considering deletion as the outcome; would moving it draft be an option? There is some good content on that page, it would be a shame to lose it all. Perhaps in draft it could be improved to more people's satisfaction. Like I said, just a question... - wolf  04:47, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * There's less there than you think. Very little on the ship design itself with the bulk of the article being context. Which is why I'd support moving it into the Fisher article where it would fall under his Baltic Plan and fascination for fast, heavily armed and minimally protected ships.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:11, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * There's nothing wrong with userfying the article if someone wants to work on it, but I don't see a lot of room for improvement, as the sources just aren't there. Parsecboy (talk) 11:48, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Merge, as Sturmvogel66 mentions, would be good. Better than outright deletion. I've notified the page creator of the AfD, perhaps he'd like to userfy it. Thanks for the replies. - wolf  07:03, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. Some paper designs are obscure and do not meet GNG. Other paper designs do meet GNG. Even a cursory google books check shows multiple hits, spanning a century, for this paper design - meeting WP:GNG. Icewhiz (talk) 10:53, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Are these multiple hits actual in-depth coverage as required by WP:SIGCOV or are they passing mentions? Everything I've seen has been of the latter type. Parsecboy (talk) 11:48, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. I created this article back in 2008, more or less on the grounds that the 'Incomparable' concept is mentioned in Siegfried Breyer's 'Battleships and Battlecruisers of the World', so it was probably worth us having an article on it. Page 172, if anyone wants to check. So I am very surprised that it's being nominated for deletion on the basis of not being mentioned in that specific work and that a bunch of people have !voted 'delete' appearing to take that untrue statement in the rationale as their reason (and also indeed that Sturmvogel has left that statement in the rationale despite someone else already pointing out that it's inaccurate). Breyer is indeed one of the 'standard' references. He doesn't cite his own sources, but then nor do half of the standard works on the development of the battleship, and if you want to say Breyer isn't an RS then fine, but he's cited hundreds of times in our battleship articles. You might wonder why some hypothetical design concepts get mentioned in that kind of book and others don't; basically because some are particularly interesting for illuminating how particular people were thinking. Jackie Fisher gets a huge amount of coverage in sources at every level, whether he actually deserves to be written about so much is another question but for our purposes we only really care that he is. So his frankly silly ideas like this proposal get more attention than anyone else's. The Land (talk) 07:49, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. Makes a claim to significance and is properly referenced. Szzuk (talk) 07:58, 29 September 2018 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.