Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of littoral combat ships of the United States Navy


 * 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   redirect to Littoral combat ship. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:07, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

List of littoral combat ships of the United States Navy

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

This page duplicates three separate pages and a template: Littoral combat ship, Freedom class littoral combat ship, Independence class littoral combat ship and the LCS template. Prod stating that fact was removed with the comment 'Deprod Reason given does not justify deletion.' Buckshot06 (talk) 22:28, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:41, 1 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Littoral combat ship, which should have been done before the prod or AfD. The presence of the two class articles has no bearing on a list covering both classes as a standard set of the list system (see List of frigates of the United States Navy, List of destroyers of the United States Navy, etc.). The presence of the template is utterly irrelevant to the deletion or retention of this article as well. That said, though, it duplicates the list currently included in Littoral combat ship, and as at the moment there are only the two classes of (what is claimed to be) an otherwise-unique ship type, there is no reason to list the ships both in the ship type page and on their own page. If additional classes of LCS are created (and I certainly hope that instead we have a return to sanity, but that's neither here nor there) or the type starts being used by other navies, then the merits of a seperate list can be debatated anew, but right now this should simply be redirected. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:00, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Is the two-column list I added to the main LCS article sufficient for all 55 ships? (Is it allowable to go four column?) Hcobb (talk) 01:28, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 2 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Articles systematicaly listing all US vessels of each type have been provided for all other types of vessel. If this list is removed then this scheme will be broken. It may may justifiable to rename this artle List of classes of litoral combat ships of the US navy (or similar). If there is an article that is wrong then it is the Article Littoral combat ship, which has become US centric as a result of the list. There are other ships of this type (even if their owners have not classified them as such). e.g. Hamina class missile boat. Op47 (talk) 14:28, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * How can that be a comparable class? It's a tenth the size of the LCS and is actually a combatant as it is armed. Hcobb (talk) 15:02, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The LCS is a US-only thing, and the term "littoral combat ship" is purely an invention of the United States Navy, so of course the article is "US-centric". The rest of the world, not needing a buzzword to wow Congress, calls this type of ship a Corvette. - The Bushranger One ping only 16:03, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The rest-of-Earth isn't immune to buzzwords, but I personally find the "See Also" note to be sufficient mention for MEKO. Should somebody else start putting modular multirole frigates that use a lot of unmanned systems into the water and calling them LCSs then these should be listed as LCS classes. Hcobb (talk) 16:17, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment agree with Bushranger. There's no need for this page at present, and even if at some point there is, it should be at 'List of corvettes of the United States Navy'. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:10, 2 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Redirect Per Bushranger. As a note, should the corvette title come into use, suggest "List of corvette-type ships of the United States Navy" to keep it neutral. Intothatdarkness (talk) 14:21, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * "Corvette-type ships" would be weasel-wording, and there will be porcine aviators over Tartarus before they get officially designated "corvette", I'm afraid. - The Bushranger One ping only 18:15, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Then expect ravings for using a ship class that the USN doesn't, is all I can say. Intothatdarkness (talk) 14:30, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 8 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep: I see nothing wrong with this list at all. No one has made a strong argument how this runs afoul of WP:LIST or any of the subcategories therein. Roodog2k (talk) 15:40, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The fact it completely duplicates content in another article? - The Bushranger One ping only 21:15, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes. A list can duplicate content found in other article(s). Roodog2k (talk) 18:00, 15 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Redirect Per Bushranger. Brad (talk) 03:52, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Redirect to avoid unnecesasry duplication of content.  Sandstein   08:34, 16 June 2012 (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.