Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Naval Vessel Mottos: United States


 * 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 all. T. Canens (talk) 03:39, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Naval Vessel Mottos: United States

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Non notable, unreferenced collection of trivia per WP:NOTABLE. These mottos should be included in the individual ship articles IMO and do not require a separate entry. Anotherclown (talk) 09:15, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.  —Anotherclown (talk) 09:18, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:
 * Anotherclown (talk) 09:39, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Anotherclown (talk) 09:39, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Anotherclown (talk) 09:39, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Anotherclown (talk) 09:39, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Anotherclown (talk) 09:39, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Anotherclown (talk) 09:39, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Anotherclown (talk) 09:39, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Anotherclown (talk) 09:39, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Anotherclown (talk) 09:39, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Anotherclown (talk) 09:39, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Anotherclown (talk) 09:39, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Anotherclown (talk) 09:39, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Anotherclown (talk) 09:39, 25 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete: Yeow. At least for the two American articles, they are a mess! Perpetually incomplete, OR/unreferences, vandalism magnets, and a significant number of entries don't even have articles. Seems like most of the contributors are anons and SPAs who are members of the listed unit (COI). Really, just note the nickname of the unit on its article and leave it at that, there is no real encyclopedic value or meaningful intersection to this list.  bahamut0013  words deeds 10:02, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * My initial though is Delete. Though it's not impossible that they could be reclaimed as stubby articles. Called list of... and with the capitalisation sorted out. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:48, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * They are certainly notable, but delete per other reasons by Bahamut, it is more important that the mottos are on individual unit pages, Sadads (talk) 14:22, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Very weak keep per GraemeLegget's improvement suggestions WikiCopter RadioChecklistFormerly AirplanePro 19:02, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete: largely seem to be original research and, to be honest, I think it is just trivia with limited, if any, encyclopedic value. I certainly find these things interesting, but listing it on the various unit pages themselves would be enough, I feel. AustralianRupert (talk) 02:07, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete I agree, this info should be on the relevent pages ... not listed seperatly from the units involved. Putting them on Unit pages will also put more eyes onto it, where it is more likely to find a WP:Cite. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 04:05, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete all. Articles listing a selection of military unit mottoes for a national military force or parts thereof does not add any useful understanding to the units, the mottoes, or the use of mottoes by military forces in that nation. Most, if not all mottoes will be found in the unit articles, where they can be more effectively cited, and elaborated on as necessary. -- saberwyn 05:20, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Transwiki all to Wikiquote. 76.66.200.95 (talk) 05:33, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete all - should be on relevant pages. Buckshot06 (talk) 06:30, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep While certainly many of these are unreferenced, that's a cause for cleanup rather than deletion. Military mottos are themselves studied and commented upon, though I doubt the above links will show up anything simply searching on the article titles themselves. "Trivia" is used pejoratively and unconvincingly here. Jclemens (talk) 00:42, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * On the basis of what policy? Anotherclown (talk) 09:28, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I have to disagree with you about the use of "trivia". If the mottos really are a matter of study and inquiry, then where are the sources? The referencing for these lists are sadly lacking, and most of the few sources that are there are simply that unit's website or veteran's alumni association, not a reliable third-party source. Not to mention that there seems to be an incredible amount of OR going on there.  bahamut0013  words deeds 14:25, 28 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep as per Jclemens. Edward321 (talk) 23:55, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, really have to question these 'keep' votes. On the basis of what policy is this being suggested? Buckshot06 (talk) 04:36, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The lack of any policy-based deletion rationale is sufficient reason to keep. WP:NNC is clear that individual entries (e.g., in a list) need not be individually notable. Jclemens (talk) 16:11, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I clearly cited policy in the deletion rationale - WP:NOTABLE - and I will add WP:MILMOS/N. To say that the rationale lacked a basis in policy is as such disingenuous. I have no problem with these mottos being included in the individual articles (if referenced), but as they stand the bulk are unreferenced, non-notable trivia (many are even 'unofficial') so would probably constitute WP:OR. AFDs are not popularity contests and voting keep just because you 'like' the article or the information in it achieves little. If you can improve the articles and add reliable sources that establish notability then feel free to do so. Anotherclown (talk) 21:07, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Citing WP:NNC is rather deceptive in this case. NNC refers to the notability about content within an individual article, not the content of a list. In fact, it specifically states "However, notability may be used as an inclusion criterion for lists. This guideline does not override that usage (see Stand-alone lists)." NNC doesn't allow us to disregard the notability policies merely because the information is arranged in a list format. You may find it helpful to read WP:listcruft.  bahamut0013  words deeds 00:22, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom; this is essentially trivia that is nonnotable. Karanacs (talk) 13:59, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete; a magnet for unsourced trivia. (I think "trivia" is often misused; being an encyclopaedia, wikipedia should aim to cover lots of things, including relatively minor ones; but a motto is just about the least substantial or useful detail of a vessel that I could imagine. It's just a made-up phrase; sometimes made up "officially", sometimes not. Even the name of the person who ceremonially swung the bottle is more substantial). Keep them in the articles about each vessel. bobrayner (talk) 13:51, 1 October 2010 (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.