Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/USS Sproston (DD-577)

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 Keep. --Holderca1 04:54, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] USS Sproston (DD-577)

Delete as per nomination. Lack of content - perhaps the person in reference should make the page for themselves? LichYoshi 05:25, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Now that I see what it's become, please forgive my over-zealousness. -LichYoshi 07:04, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Please don't worry! We were glad to fix it. Joaquin Murietta 07:17, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I would ask that you do not delete the information entered for the USS Sproston. My Father Lawrence H. Ernest and the remaining shipmates of the USS Sproston recently had a reunion in Charleston, SC. They have a wealth of information concerning this ship and all related mater to enter an outstanding article about this ship. I felt that the little bit of information I placed there would let others know that a more detailed article would be forthcoming and looked better than no information at all. However now that it has that UGLY tag for deletion on it I would much rather you delete it. I have contacted the parties that can provide us with a much more appropriate entry. Please forgive my enthusiasm and sub par work in this matter. Please delete the information I entered ASAP or remove the deletion notice. Thank you, Lawrence Ernest.

• Strong Keep. The USS Sproston DD 577 was Fletcher class destroyer. I edit this article into a stub and ask that you look at it tomorrow and consider withdrawing the nomination. Joaquin Murietta 06:15, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
• Obvious Keep. I turned this into a reasonable stub (sorry, Joaquin, I didn't see your note), and now it just needs some real work. Bikeable 06:44, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Bikeable, we were editing it at the same time. I expanded it -- do you think we should remove the stub? All it needs now is to wikify all the DANFS text and to switch the photo of the Fletcher for a public domain DANFS photo of the Sproston. Oh, yeah, we need a disambiguation page. Joaquin Murietta 06:53, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

• I created the disambig page for the two ships named USS Sproston. ♠DanMS 04:29, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

• Obvious keep now, after all the work by Joaquin Murietta. Thank you! ♠DanMS 07:43, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you 71.140.134.102 00:00, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, navy destroyers are all notable. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:51, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
• Absolutely keep. Great job, Joaquin. -- Captain Disdain 08:04, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

thank you. 71.140.134.102 00:00, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

• Keep Now a great little article thanks to Joaquin Murietta and Bikeable. Should be nominated for Wikipedia:Good articles. Capitalistroadster 08:54, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your gracious comments. 71.140.134.102 00:00, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

• Strong Keep Stu 14:35, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep. Nothing NN about a Navy destroyer. Article is excellent now (even if it wasn't, would still get my vote for speedy keep). - Sensor 02:12, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep big ships Klonimus 06:18, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, as obviously notable. Carioca 20:58, 1 November 2005 (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.