Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/USS South Dakota (BB-49)

USS South Dakota (BB-49) and other individual South Dakota-class battleship articles

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

While there is a good article about 1920s South Dakota-class battleships, six of which were laid down but all cancelled prior to launching, the articles about individual ships offer very little (if any) additional information because all ships of the class were cancelled before launching. Apart from slight differences in dates, photographs and minor trivia (e.g. here), they have practically identical content. It is also extremely unlikely that these articles would ever be expanded from their current state. Thus, any information deemed worth keeping could be included in the main class article and the individual ship articles should be deleted.) Tupsumato (talk) 08:05, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the above reason:

All the articles appear to be recreations of articles that were redirected to the main article. They don't seem to have enough unique content over and above the class article so merge back to the class article.Nigel Ish (talk) 10:09, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:12, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:12, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - longstanding practice for unfinished warships is to redirect them to the class article, barring a few notable exceptions, Japanese battleship Tosa being one example. It's worth pointing out that these articles had been redirected for years until they were recreated the other day. Parsecboy (talk) 12:31, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I completely missed that. I just checked that the articles had existed for year, but failed to notice that it wasn't until yesterday that the redirects were expanded into "real" articles. For this reason, I also failed to notify the user responsible for that. Thus, I propose reverting the articles back to redirects. Regardless, I guess it's ok to have this discussion. Tupsumato (talk) 14:38, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to the main article on the ship class. These are stubs with no realistic hope of expansion and most of the information is already to be found in the main article. As such they are unnecessary content forks. What little is not duplicated can be merged. -Ad Orientem (talk) 12:54, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Rote creation of placeholders which seems to have been divorced from any ideal of benefiting readers. bobrayner (talk) 13:42, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per pretty clear previous consensus. Andrew Gray (talk) 16:24, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:59, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen plenty of pages of late that has had the same amount of info as the ones I edited and they get to say so why not these? I'm not sure why these have to be deleted since they were already existing pages just set on a redirect?85 GT Kid (talk) 13:26, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]