Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Admiralty administration

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 NO CONSENSUS. -Splash^talk 22:45, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Admiralty administration

This article about the administration of the British Admiralty is from the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica. It is also hopelessly out of date. It is about the current (1911) state of affairs, so there's no good historical information, either. There might be some information that is still accurate, but verifying the article, statement by statement, does not seem worthwhile. I have uploaded and updated many 1911 EB articles, but some are better off deleted. -- Kjkolb 11:36, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Oppose - this article applies to the Admiralty at a time when then the Royal Navy is possibly its highest point, the most powerful naval force in the world with the building of the modern Dreadnought-type battleships and before the rise of the aeroplane. The article describes posts that are referenced in biographies of senior British naval figures (on their rise through the Admiralty). GraemeLeggett 12:37, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't dispute this. :-) However, an encyclopedia should be up to date and not consist of snapshots of various times. The text will still be available, as there is a project that is working on making an online version of the encyclopedia. -- Kjkolb 13:15, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

If you mean wikisource, then is it not a move with a soft redirect and and not a deletion?GraemeLeggett 17:11, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if WikiProject 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica would want to have this article transferred. They may have their own system of proofreading and such, but I asked them. -- Kjkolb 04:30, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete I was hoping that I'd want to keep this article but it's not notable as it merely refers to the breakdown of administrative and bookkeeping roles. It's basically a bit of the Civil service at a particular point in time. HM Treasury doesn't refer to it's internal governance structures from various points in time for example. MLA 15:48, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. -- Krash (Talk) 16:57, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

• Rework, merge, and redirect: The complaint that this article is out of date is correct; it's one of the first articles on the list for reworking in the 1911 verification project. The historical aspects worthy of preservation (as opposed to transient setups) need to be excised and merged into Admiralty, and the whole article should then be redirected there. Please DO NOT delete this article, as it would cause headaches for the 1911 verification project -- I'm currently working on verifying that we have no remaining missing articles (i.e., redlinks), and deleting articles within the 1911 namespace would make unnecessary trouble at this point. Alba 16:55, 6 March 2006 (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.