Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/INS Nishank

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 was redirect. W.marsh 18:35, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] INS Nishank

INS Nishank (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - (View log)

Non-notable ship in the Indian military. While it is apparent that it does, in fact, exist, it appears to be just on of a dozen identical ships. I would say "merge" into Ships of the Indian Navy, but there is nothing to merge; almost the entire article already exists there. Haemo 03:25, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Redirect per nom. --Coredesat 03:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Redirect is probably best, allowing for a full article if information becomes available. As a missile corvette it seems potentially notable, no matter how many ships a given navy has of that class. Certainly there are plenty of historical ships no larger that all have articles. Avoid systematic bias. --Dhartung | Talk 04:03, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
    • It's not the size of the ship that's the issue; rather, it's just a given, arbitrary ship in Indian Navy. There's nothing special, unique, or notable about it. Has the ship done anything notable? Apparently not. Has the ship been in any notable engagements? Apparently not. Has the ship been party to any notable dealings, or sale? Apparently not. Is there anything interesting about the ship, beyond its class, which already has an article? Apparently not. It's not systematically biased to exclude content from Wikipedia which does not meet WP:NOTE. --Haemo 04:37, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete or redirect--I'll bring the food (Talk - Contribs - My Watchlist) 04:04, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep It's amazing how many times I click on "Random article" and up comes an article on a navy ship, existing or scrapped. (As it happens, most often US Navy.) Almost all of them have nothing to say that makes the ship stand out from others in the ways that User:Haemo suggests, but if they are here I presume that other users find them valid. On that basis, this article should stay (or thousands of others need to be added to this nomination!!!!) Emeraude 15:11, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
  • This is simply untrue. Look at the articles about other ships - say, the US Navy. I spent quite a while perusing what makes a "good" ship article, and even the most elementary have details about the class, deployments, information, and history. All of these are encyclopedic content. Furthermore, per WP:INN and WP:POKEMON your argument doesn't hold water - if there are thousands of other articles as totally bereft of content as this one is, I suggest they be deleted too. The fact that there are poor articles out there does not mean we should tolerate more. --Haemo 20:12, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Redirect — all warships are notable, but this is an empty article ➥the Epopt 15:17, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
  • No matter if it is traceable ship or not, it is so well known or not, it still forms the part of Indian navy with pride. therefore I think there should not be any problem with any one to give a little space here to a big ship. After all you never know when a ship is in light for some reason or other. Babarab 17:13, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete unless sourced and expanded, Keep if this is done by this AfD. Virtually every ship in the United States Navy has its own article. Is there a valid reason to treat the Indian Navy differently? If people think the current approach to articles on navy ships is wrong, a wholesale policy review involving deletion of a large number of articles might rectify the issue, but individual inconsistent AfDs don't appear to be the right approach. That said, article supplies no sources and says nothing of substance about this ship, WP:V and some basis for an article needs to be complied with at a minimum. --Shirahadasha 18:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Again, this this simply not true. Look at List of United States Navy ships, A. By no means does every single ship have a page. Not even all ships current commissioned have pages, despite the US Navy being one of the most active and important Navies in the world. Furthermore, the ones that do have pages are not one-line stubs with no content - some of them are a little terse, but they include content. This article does not. --Haemo 20:12, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- Mereda 07:45, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  • This article as it currently stands is effectively 1 line in table of ships, giving a name of a ship and its commissioning date. Per Wikipedia:Deletion policy we should not delete it if it is a stub that can possibly be expanded into a full article. I've looked, and cannot find any sources from which to expand this stub into a full article — no books, no news or magazine features, not even any web sites run by enthusiasts. This ship simply isn't documented in depth anywhere. It should not, therefore, have an entire article by itself. A single-fact article is the wrong way to include this single fact in Wikipedia. The right way is to include it in a list or a table, along with other such facts, and we find that it has already been included in this way in Ships of the Indian Navy. Uncle G 14:59, 22 January 2007 (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.