Talk:HMS Lydia

Redirect

No, not a mis-interpretation of bold. This is an entirely non-notable ship. Please provide citations to third-party sources that offer evidence that anyone cares about this ship enough to provide commentary, critical reaction, etc. Otherwise, restore redirect. i.e., meet WP:BURDEN for editors adding/restoring content. --EEMIV (talk) 15:06, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

When I reverted EEMIV's original unilateral, undiscussed redirect my edit summary stated: "reverting no doubt innocent misinterpretation of WP:BOLD -- discuss on talk page please". EEMIV unilaterally redirected several articles on Horatio Hornblower's fictional vessels, without regard to whether they cited references. The HMS Lydia article did cite C. Northcote Parkinson's Life and Times of Horation Hornblower. All these vessels have been discussed, in detail, in that book, in Forester's Hornblower Companion. The Hornblower novels are among the most popular and influential series of novels ever published. So I stand by my characterization of the unilateral, undiscussed redirect as a misinterpretation of WP:BOLD -- which does not authorize lapses from WP:POINT. EEMIV came directly to make these redirects moments after leaving a note on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spacecraft in the Honorverse. Geo Swan (talk) 15:34, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Please address this article's lack of sources that establish notability -- significant coverage in third-party sources; Parkinson's text, more so even than The Hornblower Companion, is an in-universe recap of the stories (framed as a biography), and hardly establishes notability. This stub itself merely regurgitates parts of the book's WP:PLOT. Rather than waiting WP:BOLD and WP:POINT, please instead justify this article's stand-alone existence through citations to multiple third-party sources that establish notability and offer a real-world perspective

Also, rather than copy-and-pasting across four talk pages, can we just use Talk:HMS Justinian? --EEMIV (talk) 15:35, 24 April 2009 (UTC)