Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of other countries battleships

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was merge. The motion was to rename the article, but there is almost duplicate content on List of Minor navies battleships. The recommendation is to rename and merge content from both to fit Wikipedia's NPOV policy. The arguments presented was that minor, and other is considered as POV. -- AllyUnion (talk) 05:56, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

List of other countries battleships
This is a 'list of things that haven't been covered yet in related lists'. That's actually misleading. Should be split into a number of separate articles. Radiant! 12:44, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * Btw, there are about half a dozen articles "List of battleships". I believe those are (just about) encyclopedic enough to let them stand, but ymmv. Radiant! 12:46, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * At the very least it needs a useful title. - TB 14:14, 2005 Feb 17 (UTC)
 * Keep in one piece, maybe rename. If countries only have 1-3 battleships they don't need their own list. Kappa 14:15, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. What is an "other" country?  The article describes itself as a list of "minor" countries' battleships.  What is a "minor" country?   On Wikipedia, there are no "other" countries and there are no "minor" countries.   The author meant, "List of battleships that aren't on any other country lists"; but that is silly.   This article actually only makes sense in the context of the table in Battleship, to which it does not even link.  Somebody has created a separate article for each cell in that table, and one of the cells is "Other".  This table and the numerous articles listing battleships that it has engendered need to be thought through again. --BM 14:39, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Ridiculous title. Concur with BM above. Fire Star 15:21, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment As noted above, this is a legitimate list from the Wikipedia ships project. A better procedure would have been to list it on Duplicate articles or add the template to both List of Minor navies battleships and List of other countries battleships. I had at first thought to follow Stan's advice, but am woefully unqualified. DialUp 16:21, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * The usual strategy is to start with list of battleships, then split out long lists for countries having lots of them, cleverly leaving the miscellaneous on the main list where they are visible, and avoiding the issue of what to name the list of the miscellaneous. Stan 16:22, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Stan, is there anyone from your project that will do this? The only thing I can do is move List of Minor navies battleships over to List of battleships to save the history and merge the few ships from List of other countries battleships. And then copy the links from the table at Battleship#Battleships throughout history over. But I am unknowledgeable about ships. Thanks for your prompt answer, by the way. DialUp 20:17, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, I think that BM and Stan make good points. When you have a list that needs breakouts, you don't then create a breakout for the part of the list that doesn't need to be broken out! Oh, and if for some reason we do keep it, let's buy an apostrophe for the title. HyperZonktalk 17:54, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes BM has a good point but he's voting to delete the contents, which renders merging it impossible. Kappa 22:51, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm not really voting to delete the contents. I just want to make sure the title is deleted and not turned into a redirect.   If someone wants to Merge then Delete, that is fine with me, but most of the admin's won't do that because of GFDL problems and the necessity of maintaining the edit history.   A 'merge' vote is really 'merge and redirect' and if I'm not comfortable with the title/topic, I hardly ever vote that way, even if I don't mind if the useful content is worked in somewhere else.  --BM 00:46, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Rename and/or merge, but do not delete. -Sean Curtin 01:11, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * Rename, but do not delete. Johntex 16:28, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Rename. I seem to recall that a "minor power" in the naval sense is a nation that lacks a navy large enough for aggressive actions, and uses their fleet primarily for local self-defense. The various lists of battleships probably need to be consolidated under the "See also" section of the Battleships page. &mdash; RJH 17:48, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Rename, but do not delete. &mdash; Linnwood 07:10, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Rename. Megan1967 08:14, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Note to Administrators: I think List of other countries battleships can be deleted safetly. It appears outdated by List of Minor navies battleships which is linked to Battleship through a redirect. The only ships listed in other countries that do not appear on the minor navies list are Norway's; but they are on List of Norwegian battleships. DialUp 15:42, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.