Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kalk

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 of the debate was disambiguate USS Kalk (DD-170) and Stanton Frederick Kalk. -- BD2412 talk 01:49, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kalk

I think it is supposed to be a boat, but the notability is not established.

I found this page, which verifies that it is real, but does not give any reason to keep the article.

---Sonic Mew July 3, 2005 09:16 (UTC)

  • Delete She's a US Navy Destroyer. I'd say keep a page on her, but that article needs to be destroyed: definitely copy+paste. A real article on her should be at USS Kalk. (Unsigned vote by Alex12 3, 3 July 2005 11:50)

*Keep, rewrite, and move... this article really is appallingly badly written (or should that be copied...). However, USS Kalk is probably notable enough to be given an article, so I propose a rewriting (allbeit that it remains a stub for the time being). The article should then be moved to USS Kalk, with Kalk made a redirect. UkPaolo 3 July 2005 19:48 (UTC)

  • Keep, rewrite and move - I concur with UkPaolo JoJan 3 July 2005 20:48 (UTC)
  • Delete: Please, folks, look at what you're suggesting. A complete rewrite and a move = delete. Why on earth put it off for some unspecified someone to write a page on it and maintain this junk C&P until then? Do we actually want to misinform people and look bad in the process? Geogre 3 July 2005 20:56 (UTC)
Because if we delete this info first, before the new article is written, then it is lost. Believe it or not, the data, dates in particular are still note-worthy. I've created a basic stub at USS Kalk, which I encourage anyone interested to add further to. There's plenty more info at that link from Sonic Mew, which could be included, but I don't have time to do so just now. My vote would now be to Redirect Kalk to USS Kalk. UkPaolo 3 July 2005 22:00 (UTC)
At this point, then redirect only is perfectly fine. However, going to extremes to prevent deletion is a bad general idea. If it needs a total rewrite, that means that nothing is worth keeping. In this case, the only things actually worth keeping came from VfD voters! I.e. VfD was being used as a Requested Articles, in effect. I'm all in favor of good information going in, but why not just go ahead and write the good article and then argue for redirect or delete from the start? Presumably, this ship was named after a person who will be bio-worthy, and now this redirect points to the ship, rather than to the person. Geogre 4 July 2005 02:15 (UTC)
  • Redirect to USS Kalk. Jaxl 3 July 2005 23:49 (UTC)
  • Redirect as per above. Xoloz 4 July 2005 05:17 (UTC)
  • Delete both Kalk and USS Kalk. If somebody wants to write USS Kalk, fine, they should write it. This isn't it. Tell me something interesting about the ship and/or the person it was named after. The hastily written USS Kalk stub isn't any of those things either. In fact, it's misleading, "Kalk later sunk off the coast of Florida" makes it sound like it was an accident; in fact, it was used for target practice. RoySmith 4 July 2005 23:57 (UTC)
USS Kalk is at present surely a valid stub. I agree it could do with expansion, and if there are glaring omissions such as the one you pointed out - wouldn't it be more appropriate to change the article accordingly? UkPaolo 5 July 2005 08:16 (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.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/r/t/Wikipedia%7EArticles_for_deletion_Kalk_2fb2.html"