Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of sunken nuclear submarines


 * 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 of the debate was Keep.  (aeropagitica)  01:04, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

List of sunken nuclear submarines
This unmaintained list, which is largely redundant with the List of lost United States submarines and the List of lost Russian or Soviet submarines, should be a category has been replaced by Category:Lost nuclear submarines. ➥the Epopt 03:08, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Transfer to category namespace. Roy  boy cr ash  fan  [[Image:Flag_of_Texas.svg|30px]] 05:56, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep How much maintenence does a list like this take? It's not like nuclear submarines are frequently sinking. Night Gyr 11:09, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge with nuclear submarine. Sure, it takes no maintenance - because it is a very small list which does not change much.  In other words, it can be covered encyclopaedically in the main article.  When there are a dozen or more it might be a bit too much, but the current content, when converted to prose, makes up one or at most two short paragraphs.  Alternatively, make it a list of all nucmear submarines with current status (decommissioned, sunk, still in service, sold to a South American dictator etc). A list of eight items which is unlikely to change much does not seem to me to be a significant topic. Just zis Guy you know? 12:54, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, as this it useful as a list. I would not say that it is redundant because of the other lists, as it includes subs from both countries and nuclear is not a trivial distinction. Also, keeping it as a list allows for notes and an extended introduction. I do not see a problem with having a category as well, but my preference would be a list. -- Kjkolb 14:26, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep seems useful. Eivind 15:15, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, as per Kjkolb; list adds some structure and background information useful for reference, especially given the obscurity of the designations of the vessels themselves. Smerdis of Tlön 15:36, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, as per Kjkolb Hawkestone 16:32, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Categorise There is no information on this page that would not be provided by a category page. It would be an efficient option to categorise the sunken submarines as such rather than to list them on this page. If the article could be expanded to include some encyclopædic content then there might be a case for retention but not if it remains as-is.   (aeropagitica)   17:09, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Not true. The list has nations, and now causes and dates.  Categories can't have anything  but titles of articles. Night Gyr 20:11, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep and possibly merge. --AaronS 18:52, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep as per above. Chairman S.  Talk  20:30, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - This is valid, verifiable encyclopedic content that provides more information than a category alone could possibly provide. Cyde   Weys  21:57, 8 March 2006 (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.