Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HMS Pegasus (1944)


 * 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 delete Salvio Let's talk about it! 01:16, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

HMS Pegasus (1944)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:GNG. Ship never built, no real claims of notability. wikipedia not a repository of all knowledge. Rogermx (talk) 21:42, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:48, 21 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete No mention in any of the usual warship RS. Article appears to be based on a self published collection of reminisces and is probably a good faith falsehood. No record of this name being allocated in to an aircraft carrier in this period Lyndaship (talk) 08:51, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
 * There is a (very) fleeting mention in D K Brown's Nelson to Vanguard (p. 61) of a design for two new aircraft maintenance ships (not Unicorn-class ships) being started in 1944 but quickly being abandoned as it wouldn't be ready in time, with instead the 1942 Design Light Fleet Carriers HMS Pioneer (R76) and HMS Perseus (R51). No names are mentioned for these ships. I suspect that this article might be a garbled version of this design, but without better sourcing we cannot be sure. As it is the article is a zero-content stub that does not appear to meet GNG and has no sensible target to merge to - so Delete.Nigel Ish (talk) 10:23, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete Or it might have its origin in the planned "Improved Majestic-class" which did not go ahead. Either way has no RS. Davidships (talk) 10:53, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak/reluctant delete - unfortunately there is nothing there. - wolf  20:50, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete per Lynda and Nigel. Parsecboy (talk) 12:16, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete perhaps worth a mention in a Unicorn Class para under HMS Unicorn (I72)? - Broichmore (talk) 12:46, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete there's no there, there--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 11:58, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete If there was evidence that its design was particularly significant or the fact that it was not built had an impact on later naval designs or said something about the British navy at the time there might be an argument for retention. However there is no evidence of this, so there does not seem to be any point in keeping. Dunarc (talk) 20:19, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete for reasons given above. Also, it appears the name was already in use by HMS Ark Royal (1914) which "was renamed HMS Pegasus in 1934, freeing the name for the aircraft carrier ordered that year".  That HMS Pegasus was not sold by the British navy until 18 October 1946.  So I have my doubts about this other ship by that same name slated for 1944.  If there is something off in my logic here, I'm all ears--I claim no special knowledge to ship naming!  :)  --David Tornheim (talk) 09:05, 27 September 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.