Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Project 89 Kondor Minesweeper


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 22:38, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Project 89 Kondor Minesweeper

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

the article is completely unreferenced and even do not exist on search engines. UBS talk  17:05, 15 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose: Admittedly, the article is a stub, but there is no reason to delete it. The class is notable by itself and the articles in foreign-language editions show there are plenty of sources. (I took the liberty to add the appropriate links) ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 19:52, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:22, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:22, 18 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep and expand. The German Wikipedia article is huge and well referenced, and a class of warships is an inherently notable topic. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:30, 18 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep and expand, per Yngvadottir, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:53, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep and use the German article as reference - the German article is well referenced. Hafspajen (talk) 18:15, 18 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Don't know if permitted to post pictures here, if not, just move them to article. Hafspajen (talk) 18:40, 18 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep inherently notable by our rules. Buckshot06 (talk) 20:33, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep per above. Being a stub isn't a problem per WP:DONOTDEMOLISH.  Montanabw (talk) 21:14, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep references have now been added so WP:V is met, and these ships will have received sufficient coverage in Jane's Fighting Ships and similar publications to establish notability. Nick-D (talk) 22:03, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Ban the duck!. Wait...oh, sorry, this isn't AN/I at all, my mistake.  :-)        What I meant to say is, cf Talk:Project_89_Kondor_Minesweeper.  These may help prove WP:N.  74.192.84.101 (talk) 03:49, 19 January 2014 (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.