Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/USS LSM-479


 * 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. See Articles for deletion/USS LSM-422 for the rationale.  Sandstein  11:12, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

USS LSM-479

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

No evidence of any notability. Deprodded on the basis of an unaccepted essay, but similar ships have already been deleted at AfD because there isn't the necessary sourcing available to actually meet the WP:GNG. Awards are generic ones, not given for any specific reason to this ship individually: and sources are either not independent or not significant. Fram (talk) 14:29, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 14:29, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 14:29, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 14:29, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. We have long considered that all commissioned military vessels are notable enough for articles. See WP:MILUNIT #4, which is a long-accepted standard. Which ships would those be? Stationary barracks ships? Not the same thing at all. They're no more than floating buildings. Would you like to tell us which actual warships have been deleted at AfD. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:02, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * That is not a "long accepted standard", that is an essay. The long accepted standard is the WP:GNG. Care to show how this run-of-the-mill ship, so important that it didn't even get a name, is actually notable? Fram (talk) 15:17, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:MILUNIT is essentially the same as WP:SOLDIER and just like SOLDIER User:Necrothesp wants people to believe its an SNG when its just an essay. Just like SOLDIER, if you read the opening wording of WP:MILUNIT its clear that WP:BASIC must still be satisfied. Mztourist (talk) 04:39, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Landing Ship Medium as this particular ship does not pass WP:GNG. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:19, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * KEEP - the ship served with two 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)
 * Serving with two navies is irrelevant, military material being sold from one country to another and so on is normal procedure and doesn't make that material more or less notable. The sourcing is fan sites and databases. Fram (talk) 17:53, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Landing Ship Medium, fails WP:BASIC. Mztourist (talk) 08:10, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Landing Ship Medium. This vessel is lacking in WP:SIGCOV in reliable sources and fails WP:GNG. There are three sources cited in footnotes in this article; two are from blogs, one is from a reliable journal article but it simply lists the transfer of the ship to the French Navy alongside a dozen other transactions (a single line of text is devoted to this). My WP:BEFORE has turned up nothing useful, just more fanblogs. The Navsource blog lists a book as it's source (LSM-LSMR Amphibious Forces, Vol. II), but that's going to need to be checked on its own to see if it suffices as SIGCOV. If "it's a commissioned military vessel" is really the "long accepted standard", then I suggested those who believe such open an RfC to try and turn that into an SNG. I'll note that the opening para of WP:MILUNIT says The key to determining notability is ultimately coverage in independent sources per the general notability guideline. Furthermore, the examples it lists as notable ships are two cruisers and an aircraft carrier with detailed and well-documented histories, not auxiliary transports. -Indy beetle (talk) 08:21, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete or redirect. Available sourcing fails WP:GNG, and group awards don't confer notability on individual recipients. Avilich (talk) 14:44, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Landing Ship Medium or delete. Clear lack of reliable, secondary, in-depth coverage to satisfy the GNG. Pilaz (talk) 23:29, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep Has coverage in RS to pass WP:GNG. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  23:31, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Does listing the characteristics of the ship constitute significant coverage? Are uboat.net, navsource.org reliable sources? WP:ILIKEIT and WP:VAGUEWAVE. Pilaz (talk) 03:13, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Can you please point out which sources make this article pass WP:GNG? I mean the nominator stated "sources are either not independent or not significant." and you are in a sense saying "yes they are". - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:08, 13 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep. The ship passes the GNG, and long standing consensus is that commissioned vessels are all notable. - The Bushranger One ping only 07:13, 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) 08:26, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Redirect per Mztourist and Indy. Parsecboy (talk) 13:52, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Landing Ship Medium, I couldn't find sufficient in-depth sources. Suonii180 (talk) 14:15, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Redirect to class page, no indicia of passing WP:GNG which is the relevant guideline/policy. -Ljleppan (talk) 08:05, 14 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.