Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/USS Kentucky (BB-66)

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 for both, without prejudice to a future merge discussion. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:50, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

USS Kentucky (BB-66)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 18:01, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 18:02, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've long been a supporter of the position that articles on incomplete ships should have their own articles here on Wikipedia, but after watching these two battleship articles mired in merge discussions for some months and seeing how much Wikipedia's standards for quality content have evolved in the years since I argued for the retention of articles on incomplete ships I now think it a good time to revisit the issue here. I am nominating the articles USS Kentucky (BB-66) and USS Illinois (BB-65) for deletion on grounds that since the FAC's for these ships our standards for an article's quality content have evolved to the point where it would now be preferable to cover the material presented in these articles in the class articles for the Iowa-class battleships and the Montana-class battleships. In nominating here I also intended to settle the various merge proposals that have been made which have garnered little if any attention and therefore have been inconclusive in settling the issue of whether or not the ship articles should be merged into the class articles mentioned above. At issue here is whether the ships still satisfy Wikipedia's notability standards and therefore have the ability to remain independent articles, or whether the notability standards have shifted such that they now fail the notability requirements to retain independent articles here. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:55, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Previous afd for USS Illinois is located here. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:59, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom rationale. Intothat darkness 18:33, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Both of these ships had their keels laid and were partially completed before cancellation. In cases such as the Montana-class battleships, where none of the ships which had names assigned to them were ever laid down, merging and redirecting the individual ships to the class article makes sense. In cases where construction was actually done, however, the ships should retain individual articles. Also, the "shifting notability standards" argument here is a bit of a red herring; while the standards considered for the notability of ships that don't otherwise meet the GNG might be stricter, WP:GNG still applies otherwise, and the subjects of both of these articles clearly meet the GNG. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:57, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, the "shifting notability standards" argument here is a bit of a red herring... I know, but this is being done for two different reasons. First, I have no interest in working to restore the articles, nor would I imagine that others would be interested in restoring the articles, if the end game for merge discussions is simply going to see the articles cease to exist independently. Secondly, I'm tired of watching merge discussions with two or three people commenting on the matter. Its extreme, I admit, but afd forces the issues by demanding a consensus one way or the other. This'll settle the merge debates and at the same time serve as a motion of confidence for the articles on notability grounds. Not a bad way o kill two birds with one stone, eh? :) TomStar81 (Talk) 00:44, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (no objection to merge though). The article is well researched and certainly meets criteria for inclusion in WP. How it is displayed/presented is immaterial to me. Buffs (talk) 01:38, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's tons of material on this ship so notability isn't a problem, and there's no reason why the article couldn't be developed so it regains FA status. Where has merging this been discussed recently? There are no discussions on the article's talk page or at Talk:Iowa class battleship. Nick-D (talk) 11:28, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm really not seeing how this discussion isn't in favor of merging both the Illinois and Kentucky. Performing the merge was even discussed somewhere (I think User:The ed17's talk page), and I volunteered to do the FA paperwork, but no one had the time to do the actual merge work at that point. Dana boomer (talk) 12:08, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Kentucky at least incomplete ships in general don't deserve a separate article, but the Iowa class battleships are probably some of the most famous ships in history, and as such, even incomplete ships in the class deserve a separate article. Nergaal (talk) 23:04, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Both USS Kentucky (BB-66) and USS Illinois (BB-65), (the latter of which is a Featured article). Both articles have received significant coverage in reliable sources, per the respective references sections for the articles. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:33, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Both I find it strange that both are being considered for deletion. A quick scan of both articles reveals a plethora of sources, several coming form books, and the articles are, for the most part, well-written. The Illinois page is a FA, also. I don't see why they need to be deleted at all, they're both notable and both could be shining FAs again one day.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 03:02, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- To clarify a point I know that there is no real expectation that either page will be deleted, this is more a forced merge discussion to compel the community to settle a number of unfulfilled merge requests and merge discussions related to both articles. Really the only issue is whether this is going to close with consensus to keep both articles separate or put them in the class page. I admit its somewhat sidestepping the letter of an afd, but this does uphold the spirt of afd. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:08, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge- notable enough for stand-alone article, but there's not enough information or controversy for a featured article (similar to, say Japanese battleship Tosa). All of the information here can be included at Iowa-class battleship. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 08:21, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is obviously enough information here to meet notability and to create a stand-alone article from. Too much good information would be lost in a merge and Wikipedia is not running out of space. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:28, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As others have pointed out, there is more than enough significant coverage for these article topics to support independent articles. --Oakshade (talk) 02:57, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment even if you cover this in the class article, wouldn't you need to keep these around anyways, as redirects? WP:MAD (or are you proposing a merge through AfD?) -- 76.65.131.160 (talk) 03:31, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- We'd end up leaving a redirect behind in the event of a merge, but I do not think that is going to happen since a vast majority of the above editors seem to be of the opinion that the article's have enough notability to stay here on there own without a merge. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:47, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I see value in a merge since the distinct content (once background, general class information is accounted for) is fairly brief and further expansion limited. GraemeLeggett (talk) 04:49, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As others have pointed out, there is more than enough significant coverage for these article topics to support independent articles. Oakshade said it well enough. Jrcrin001 (talk) 06:47, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.