Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Soviet submarine K-329


 * 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  --Anthony.bradbury"talk"  21:14, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Soviet submarine K-329

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

The contents of this article mainly deals with information on other submarines that are often incorrectly referred to as K-329. It is not necessary to create an entire article dedicated to the non-existent submarine. This article also contains much original research, and is written in a very informal manner. Stephenchou0722 (talk) 23:17, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wow, I tried reading through that article and I got extremely confused. We don't need an article for a non-existing submarine. Tavix (talk) 23:24, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, the article have not improved since February Alex Bakharev (talk) 23:43, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete: article is clearly original research and highly garbled. Mh29255 (talk) 01:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete possibly, probably, perhaps... reading this is like eavesdropping on a conversation between two boring people. Mandsford (talk) 00:35, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. Does not appear to exist. — Encephalon 04:32, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Take another look. Updated, with sources. Looks approximately like a Wikipedia article now. Help had been requested with reading Russian sources and was a long time coming. I like to saw logs! (talk) 07:36, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Great article about a submarine that never existed! Masterpiece2000 (talk) 13:10, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Took another look, no change in vote. It's an article about a submarine that existed, but that was never launched.  Maybe there's a good article about an entire fleet of these that were sunk by budget cuts, but the Belgogrod didn't leave port. Mandsford (talk) 16:06, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment. I struggle to see a good reason to keep this. Of the four sources purported to be about this submarine, 2 are anonymous posts in internet forums, and therefore completely inadmissible as references for an encyclopedia article. The remaining two are in Russian, and I am unable to ascertain what they claim about the sub. Whatever it is, the K-329 is certainly not the focus of either article; indeed "329" does not appear even once in one of them . As this machine, even if it ever existed, appears to be so poorly documented, I doubt very much that we can at present write a credible encyclopedia article on it. — Encephalon  02:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete-Why take the need to create a article for a non-exsisting sub, after the deletion, however, could add info on the confused sub pages that the sub was not to be confused with K-329.--Quek157 (talk) 04:44, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - There is very little decent information available about this submarine, and certainly (as has been said before), not enough to write a decent encyclopedic article upon. Kavanagh21 (talk) 22:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.   —Shirahadasha (talk) 04:02, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge any relevant information to the article on Oscar-II class submarine and delete. Buckshot06 (talk) 05:14, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak delete There are FA-standard articles on ships which were laid down but never finished (for example, USS Kentucky (BB-66)) so there's no reason to delete this article because the sub was never completed. However, the lack of reliable sources is a serious concern and the sub's numbering isn't consistent with the other Oscar class submarines (none of them have hull numbers in the 300-range) so I suspect that deletion would be warranted on the grounds that this might be a hoax or an article created in error. --Nick Dowling (talk) 07:32, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment The USS Kentucky was notable for "being the last authorized Iowa-class battleship, and for being the only ship of the class considered for a guided missile rebuild," while the submarine the article is about is just supposedly one of many that were discarded (not notable in any other way). Stephenchou0722 (talk) 00:04, 9 January 2008 (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.