Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/USS LSM-422


 * 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 redirect to Landing Ship Medium. I am concurrently closing the AfDs for LSM-422, LSM-479 and LSM-316 because the subjects, the AfD participants and the arguments are essentially the same.

The "keep" arguments are particularly weak in the light of applicable guidelines and must be discounted. They assert that all commissioned warships are notable, and make reference to WP:MILUNIT #4. But they overlook that MILUNIT is an essay, which by its own terms purports to reflect "consensus within the Military history WikiProject", that is, not consensus in the community at large. Moreover, MILUNIT explicitly refers to the community-accepted guideline WP:GNG, and says that subjects like warships are merely "likely, but not certain, to be suitable for inclusion".

For these reasons, arguments to the effect that warships are inherently notable have no basis in documented community consensus and must be disregarded. The arguments for deletion (failure to comply with WP:GNG) are not seriously contested. But many arguments are made that redirection to the ship type page, Landing Ship Medium, is an appropriate alternative to deletion. These arguments, in turn, are not contested by the "keep" or "delete" side, who are mainly concerned with the notability of the individual ships. Accordingly I am of the view that redirection is the most consensual outcome of this discussion.  Sandstein  11:11, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

USS LSM-422

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

No evidence of notability. The awards are generic ones, handed out by the thousands, and were not awarded especially to this ship. That a military ship was used in military actions is not a claim to notability, nor that it was used by different countries (or else many thousands of military airplanes would be notable as well I suppose?). The sources are either not independent, or not reliable (like the mypaper.pchome.com blog, or the postenavalemilitaire forum), or not really indepth. Nothing remarkable about this and many hundreds similar ships. Fram (talk) 08:25, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 08:25, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 08:25, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 08:25, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:57, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. We have long considered that all commissioned military vessels are notable enough for articles. See WP:MILUNIT #4. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:57, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Nobody cares what an unaccepted essay on notability claims, and similar landing vessels have already been deleted at AfD recently. Fram (talk) 14:27, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Nobody? Really? Let's see, shall we. And not that I recall, they haven't. Some barracks ships have. But they're no more than floating buildings. Which warships have been deleted at AfD? -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:01, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * (written before you changed your post to change the goalposts) Articles for deletion/USS APL-42, Articles for deletion/USS APL-32, Articles for deletion/USS APL-29... If you feel free to use the royal "we" to give your opinion as if it is a generally shared one, then I feel equally free to use the royal "nobody" to do the same. Obviously somebody will have thought that that essay was a good idea, but a notability essay that is not accepted by the community at large is usually given very little weight in these discussions. Fram (talk) 15:10, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Actually, quite a few ships have been deleted. This is the 15th ship to be put up for deletion in just the past 2 weeks. -  wolf  15:13, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Prodded, but not deleted. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:15, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I did not change my post to change the goalposts, so please do not make baseless accusations. This is what I originally wrote. You claimed landing ships had been deleted at AfD. That was clearly an incorrect statement. I said barracks ships had been deleted at AfD, but no actual warships. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:19, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * You claimed that "We have long considered that all commissioned military vessels are notable", and as shown, quite a few have been deleted. Obviously, even if none had been recently, that wouldn't matter, as there is always one the first. Now, if there had been recent AfDs for many similar ships which all ended in keep, then it might be interesting to see if anything here is different or not. But a lack of precedent on its own is not a reason to oppose an AfD. Fram (talk) 15:23, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Three floating barracks are not "quite a few" military vessels! I would agree with deleting them as well (which is why I didn't oppose). They're clearly not warships. These are. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:28, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * And yet they meet your "long accepted standard"... Fram (talk) 15:36, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * No, actually, they don't. Warships, including submarines, commissioned in recognised naval forces. Italics mine. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:04, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Your definition, as given above, is "We have long considered that all commissioned military vessels are notable enough for articles." Apparently you now disagree with your previous statement? Fram (talk) 11:23, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * If you consider that a floating building is a genuine military vessel then fine. I don't happen to. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:23, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid to say this still remains an essay and does not override guidelines such as WP:COVERAGE. If you want all commissioned military vessels (current and former) in existence to be automatically notable then you would have to go through WP:VPP. This is a discussion for another venue though as it needs to be Wikipedia-wide consensus. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:30, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep - Agree with Necrothesp above. -  wolf  15:13, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * As his "keep" is basically meaningless, so is yours. If you would like this to be kept, it would be better to argue how it actually meets the GNG than to point to some essay. Fram (talk) 15:15, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your advice. -  wolf  18:02, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * As his "keep" is basically meaningless, so is yours. Whoa, please simmer down the tone. WP:GOODFAITH should apply here. Please keep it civil. Just because somebody disagrees with your position, doesn't mean you need to invalidate what they say. &emsp;—&#8239;sbb&#8239;(talk) 02:54, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Sadly this style at AfD has been ongoing from some editors for quite a while. Agree with us or be shouted down and sneered at. Wikipedia is not becoming a very pleasant place. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:02, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * To be fair, its frustrating when editors throw out broad statements for their keep/delete rationales. Wolf has been around Wikipedia since 2011, he/she/they should know better. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:14, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Actually, I've been around longer than that, (since the mid-oughts), and that's why I know it's common, and commonly accepted, that some !votes are "as per editor 'x' above". I'm pretty sure you know that as well. -  wolf  05:41, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Precisely. And there is no excuse for rudeness, hostility and aggression. You can disagree without resorting to these tactics. No editors are the "true guardians" of Wikipedia, whatever they may believe. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:17, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete - the two "keep" opinions are broadly citing an essay rather than showing how it applies to this particular article. If there are problems with the sources, then can it be fixed by adding more and citing them properly? The WP:ONUS are on the ones who want to keep this article to fix this article up so it can gather more support. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:17, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment - for the record I would also support a redirect to Landing Ship Medium. Maybe a section can be created there in prose describing the overall history and purpose of the ships? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:22, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I actually proposed a similar idea after all the barracks ship articles that this same editor created were nom'd. Meanwhile, I've also suggested they maybe go thru AfC for awhile as they now have 18 pages nom'd in the past 2 weeks. -  wolf  18:02, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * KEEP - the ship served with four navies. Article would benefit from the addition of a "Description" section, but needing improvement is not a reason to delete. Sourcing is solid enough. Mjroots (talk) 16:34, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * This doesn't really answer the nominator's concerns as your statement is a bit too broad. What sourcing in particular do you consider to be solid? If the ship has served in four navies can you find additional sourcing? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:36, 6 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep - Also agreeing with Necrothesp here. U683708 (talk) 19:21, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete – While this LCM-1–class ship's article is longer than most of the articles for LCM-1s (that weren't renamed as "USS" ships and reassigned roles), there really is nothing notable about the ship having served in combat operations (as far as the article notes). I know the WP:SHIPS project generally considers 100 ft/100 tons (modern era) as default notable enough for an article, but considering that only about 43 of the nearly 560 LSM-1-class landing ship medium have articles (< 10%), this one doesn't really speak highly of the rest of the class's ability to hold a notable article. I disagree with the reasoning to delete re: the 2 sources not being reliable. That is, the mypaper.pchome.com blog and the postenavalemilitaire forum refs should be replaced by WP:RS, but the rest of the sources, including general references, are enough by themselves to satisfy sourcing requirements. But regardless of the minor (IMO) sourcing issues, I don't think the ship is notable enough to warrant its own article. I believe the threshold for LCM-1 articles is higher than this ship's article. &emsp;—&#8239;sbb&#8239;(talk) 03:14, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment The opening paragraph of the so-exalted WP:MILUNIT essay says The key to determining notability is ultimately coverage in independent sources per the general notability guideline. I fail to see how the keep votes demonstrate that this this ship passes WP:GNG. -Indy beetle (talk) 08:26, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The "keep" votes as I said above appear to be broadly citing this essay without giving examples on how it applies. WP:LOTSOFSOURCES is also not a solid basis to make an argument on as we need to know what sources exactly are "solid enough". - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:40, 8 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete - Does not appear to pass WP:GNG. WP:MILUNIT is an essay and explicitly states the GNG is what matters. I'd also be fine with Redirect to a suitable class page. -Ljleppan (talk) 09:00, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Landing Ship Medium (with the history preserved under the redirect) per Deletion. Preserving the history will allow for a selective merge and for the redirect to be undone if significant coverage in reliable sources is found in the future. I was unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources to allow USS LSM-422 to pass Notability. Cunard (talk) 02:00, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Landing Ship Medium, fails WP:BASIC. Mztourist (talk) 05:20, 10 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep Per Necrothesp. Has coverage in RS to pass WP:GNG. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  23:29, 12 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep. The ship passes the GNG, and long standing consensus is that commissioned vessels are all notable. "It's only an essay" as Fram argues above is on the very edge of good faith when the WP:ONLYESSAY serves to spell out an established consensus. - The Bushranger One ping only 07:12, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * How is it nearly bad faith to indicate that a local consensus of project editors is not an accepted guideline and not an indication of actual community consensus about something? If it really has consensus, then start an RfC and make it into an actual guideline. But having an essay that claims that these are notable, and then trying to keep an article at AfD (for lack of notability) because you have as a project written an essay that claims, out of thin air, that these are notable, sources be damned, is circular reasoning. How this passes the WP:GNG is completely unclear, simply stating that it does is hardly convincing. Fram (talk) 08:23, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Saying a ship passes GNG because it does, doesn't automatically make it pass GNG. If we were going by an argument basis then I would want to see how the ship passes GNG through the sources that are present. The nominator has pointed out that the sources used " are either not independent, or not reliable (like the mypaper.pchome.com blog, or the postenavalemilitaire forum), or not really indepth." can you counter this argument? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:15, 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)


 * Has there been some canvassing to get the Milhist editors suddenly out in droves (on all these AfDs) after so many days? Anyway, a lot of people from a project parrotting that these meet GNG (without evidence) and that they have a local consensus to keep these, doesn't make these true or valid of course. Fram (talk) 08:23, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * What, they disagree with you so it must be canvassing? And they're members of a project on a subject in which they have an interest so their opinions aren't valid? Priceless! -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:23, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Have you actually read your own post from, uh, just 6 minutes earlier? Fram (talk) 09:29, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Strangely, I have. No rudeness here. Just amazement that any editor has the gall to say such a thing and to think that dismissing the opinions of other editors in this way is in the spirit of Wikipedia. You never cease to amaze me. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:42, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I guess you're better in recognising hostility and aggression in the comments made by others than in your own comments then. But I'm glad that I bring you amazement, we wouldn't want life to become too boring. Fram (talk) 09:46, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak redirect per my comment here in a related AfD. Much of the newspaper coverage amounts to puffery - we don't need to pad articles with that sort of junk. There's a bit more coverage than most of the others in this batch (hence why my !vote is "weak") but I don't think it's enough to pass muster. Parsecboy (talk) 14:11, 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.