Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patton tank


 * 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  Keep, convert to disambiguation page Mandsford 17:48, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Patton tank

 * – ( View AfD View log )

The Patton tanks have little in common. Just sharing the namesake of Patton does not make them part of a family. Tanks of the U.S. in the Cold War covers the same topic. Marcus Qwertyus   18:03, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.  -- Marcus  Qwertyus   18:15, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.  -- Marcus  Qwertyus   18:16, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom Redirect to M48 Patton (most important in the series). Sharing a common name does not make a relationship. - The Bushranger Return fire Flank speed 19:24, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. They have a name in common, as well as their military role as US main Battle Tank. The US Army considered this a tank series, regardless of manufacturing details. R.P. Hunnicutt bothered to write a well-regarded book on the subject. Why not provide some information to a reader who looks up “Patton Tank?” —Michael Z. 2010-12-06 21:50 z 
 * The T-34 T-44, T-54/55, T-62, T-64, T-72 and T-90 tanks (to name just a few) are all adaptations of the same hull, so no. Just having the same namesake and function does not make it a family. Marcus Qwertyus   22:48, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Patton tank should probably redirect to the M48. So I changed my vote. - The Bushranger Return fire Flank speed 23:13, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't be opposed to a disambiguation page. Marcus  Qwertyus   23:29, 6 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Convert to a disambiguation page, in the same vein as USS Enterprise. I just don't think a similarity in nomenclature is a significant enough relationship to warrant an actual article. I don't think redirecting to any one tank is a good idea, and I don't really buy the "family" argument.  bahamut0013  words deeds 00:30, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Convert to dab page Mjroots (talk) 07:18, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Convert - Convert to a disambiguation page. The article and template may not be warranted, the the fact remains that these tanks (M46, M47, M48, M60) do share a formal/informal name, and it needs to be addressed somehow. - Jonathon A H (talk) 19:56, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Convert to a disambiguation per the above. Nick-D (talk) 07:40, 9 December 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.