Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/USS LSM-110


 * 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) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:38, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

USS LSM-110

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Run-of-the-mill ship, just like lots of military equipment used consecutively by a few countries, but nothing remarkable. The awards are generic ones, given for "being there", and the sources are not sufficient to meet the WP:GNG. Some unaccepted military essay tries to claim that all commissioned ships are notable, but this is not an accepted (or acceptable) guideline. Fram (talk) 15:32, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 15:32, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 15:32, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 15:32, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 15:32, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 15:32, 6 January 2022 (UTC)


 * KEEP - The ship served with four navies. The article would benefit from a "Description" section, but as we know, requiring improvement is not a reason to delete. Sources are solid enough. Mjroots (talk) 16:29, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Having served with X navies is totally irrelevant. Sources are this photo site by navy enthusiasts, a fan site for boats hit by U-boats which doesn't give any information about this ship actually being hit by a U-boat, and is just a database for this ship, and one line in a magazine. The "sources" at the bottom don't seem to actaully be sources about these ships, e.g. in the given issue of Fairplay I can't seem to find a reference to this ship? So it's not clear to me which sources you believe are "solid enough". Fram (talk) 16:38, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. We have long considered that all commissioned military vessels are notable enough for articles. See WP:MILUNIT #4, which, despite protests from one or two editors, is a long-accepted standard. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:56, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * "We"? Our long accepted standards are WP:GNG, and to a lesser degree some accepted SNGs like WP:PROF, WP:CORP, ... Project essays are by definition not accepted standards but proposals, rejected guidelines, informal thoughts, ... Furthermore, your essay states "As for any subject on Wikipedia, presumption of notability for a military unit or formation depends wholly on the existence of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. The consensus within the Military history WikiProject is that the following types of units and formations are likely, but not certain, to have such coverage and therefore likely, but not certain, to be suitable for inclusion" (emphasis mine). The likelihood has been challenged in these cases, just pointing back to the essay claiming that this makes them undeletable is circular reasoning of the worst kind. Fram (talk) 11:17, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep per Necrothesp, Mjroots. Sources are solid enough for a ship of this type, especially like the details of the civilians killed while in Vietnamese service. Buckshot06 (talk) 19:46, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak redirect to Landing Ship Medium or weak delete. Three of the five sources only provide basic information about the ship, but nothing to ascertain notability, and certainly do not amount to significant coverage (without judging the reliability of the sources); and I couldn't verify Philip Gutzman's and George Veith's sources, but given similar page creations, I doubt they amount to a little more than a passing mention. In my mind, we don't have a GNG level of coverage. Happy to change my vote depending on how other editors rate these sources. Pilaz (talk) 23:40, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep Veith is RS and has several paragraphs about the ship's role in the evacuation of Nha Trang accessible online. Mztourist (talk) 03:33, 10 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep Has coverage in RS to pass WP:GNG. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  23:27, 12 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep. Passes GNG, and long standing consensus is that commissioned vessel = notable. - The Bushranger One ping only 07:10, 13 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep LSMs are warships, moreover even commissioned into warfare and by several countries, aren't that notable enough? Delta (talk) 07:50, 13 January 2022 (UTC)


 * This one is marginal, but I'd lean toward keep per Mztourist - Veith is probably enough to get it over the bar. Parsecboy (talk) 13:14, 13 January 2022 (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.