Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of firms engaged in the construction of the Canadian Fairmile B motor launch


 * 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. We're going with delete on this one per the rationale provided by, , and. Thanks everyone for participating and assuming good faith! Missvain (talk) 18:57, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

List of firms engaged in the construction of the Canadian Fairmile B motor launch

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article's content doesn't sufficiently merit its own article and can be merged into Canadian Fairmile B motor launch.  CatcherStorm    talk   19:50, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:38, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:38, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:39, 23 January 2020 (UTC)


 * If the nominator is advocating merger, rather than deletion, why is this at Articles for Deletion? Did they attempt to discuss merger, by the usual talk: page discussion? Andy Dingley (talk) 23:34, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep No nomination reason given for deletion. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:34, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The reason is that I personally think isn't sufficiently notable enough to merit its own article per WP:IINFO.  CatcherStorm    talk   04:35, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * So you do favour deletion? Or merger?  Andy Dingley (talk) 10:57, 24 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete - Per nominator and WP:NOTDIRECTORY; this is not even close to a notable list worthy of its own article, and I don't think merging is appropriate because articles about ships shouldn't get cluttered with detailed lists like this either. Descriptions of the long lists of vendors that supplied parts for a particular ship are not generally notable. Shelbystripes (talk) 05:24, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOTIINFO. Summary only content could be listed in prose on the parent article. There is certainly no grounds for a list of every single contributor to this particular type of vessel. Ajf773 (talk) 08:03, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:SALAT (too specific) and revert the premature merger to Canadian Fairmile B. That level of detail doesn't get used for aircraft carriers or battleships, so why would it be appropriate for a minor vessel? Clarityfiend (talk) 09:36, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * We do give this level of detail for aircraft carriers. They're each built at a single yard, we have (large!) articles on such yards. These boats were built instead across a large number of smaller yards, prefabricators and subcontractors. They're also a much larger number of boats.  So an article on that topic is both notable much as shadow factory etc are, because the history of production in WWII is a major topic, and also best handled in an article like this. If anything, I'd possibly re-scope it from Fairmile Bs to Fairmiles in general, as I suspect that the same groups were involved across the same classes. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:01, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * No we don't have that level of detail. Who's responsible for the cowl ventilation for the USS Enterprise (CVN-65), for example? The article sayeth not. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:14, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I could see the argument that the list of shipbuilders might be relevant... but the list of equipment suppliers most certainly is not, and that 'addition' should definitely be reverted. Shelbystripes (talk) 03:06, 25 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete per above discussion regarding SALAT, but also per WP:SYNTH and WP:PRIMARY. By sourcing entirely to three original sources, everything in this list is a synthesis or rewording of those reports. Bearian (talk) 15:55, 29 January 2020 (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.