Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HMS Onyx

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was redirect. Woohookitty 11:23, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

HMS Onyx
Managed to duplicate HMS_Onyx_(S21)
 * Redirect to main article. --DavidConrad 05:32, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Redirect to HMS_Onyx_(S21) unless it can be made into a disambiguation. - Mgm|(talk) 09:17, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Redirect to HMS_Onyx_(S21). Dab as per Dunc. --Blackcap | talk 20:05, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Redirect per above. Alf melmac 20:41, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong disambiguate - it would be extremely remarkable for the Royal Navy to adopt a name for that has not been previously used. Someone needs to do some research to find a list, that's all. Dunc|&#9786; 20:55, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
 * But there aren't any other articles regarding boats called HMS Onyx (search results). So, what would it disambig? It would just say, "HMS Onyx can refer to: HMS Onyx (S21). This is a disambig page." There's no point, unless I'm missing something. --Blackcap | talk 21:53, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
 * There are no other articles on other ships or submarines in WP. But that is irrelevant.  The purpose of a dab page is so that if an article about something in the Great War links to HMS Onyx, they don't get taken to the 1960 built submarine, but a dab page explaining where the link ought to point, in this case, there was indeed another earlirr boat called Onyx, (see here), and others as well, such as a depot ship from 1892, and probably more even earlier than that.  Dunc|&#9786; 23:30, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clearing that up. There's no need to call my point stupid, just make yours. --Blackcap | talk 23:37, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
 * This should be a disambig, ala HMS Orpheus. The Royal Navy just loves reusing their names, so good disambigs with the dates of founding are essential Ziggurat 00:07, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Weak Disambig, appears to be the standard for this kind of page - unless someone can come up with a counter-example. Megapixie 10:15, 20 September 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.