Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Type T2 tankers

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 keep. postdlf (talk) 14:22, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Type T2 tankers

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

List that's a copy-paste from its single source; almost all entries are red links, the balance are redirects. The list requires that historic names be used, which significantly diminishes the value of the list. WP is not a catalog. Mikeblas (talk) 16:44, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for many reasons. Firstly, capital ships are generally assumed to be notable. Secondly, a list of names is acceptable to copy from anywhere, as there's no other reasonable way to express Abiqua .. York than a list of the said names. Thirdly, a list which contains redlinks of ships in a class is useful, as it indicates which ships still need articles. Fourthly, the names can hardly be anything but "historic", as the class was built and used in World War II, though an extra column for later names would be useful. Fifthly, Wikipedia quite rightly has Lists of lists of ships, including for instance a List of Liberty ships (transport vessels) from World War II, which in turn contains lists like List of Liberty ships (A–F), which contains redlinks like SS A. P. Hill and many others. None of these things speak for deletion. That the article could be better formatted (like the Liberty ships lists would be a fine start), better referenced, or better introduced - these things are all true; but AfD is not about editing and formatting. Keep. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:37, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:28, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:28, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:28, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment. This isn't a list of capital ships. "Other stuff exists" isn't an argument for keep. -- 16:17, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
  - Comment. "'Other stuff exists' isn't an argument for keep" is trite, and doesn't apply in any discussion about ships in Wikipedia any longer. That was fair to say when Wikipedia's coverage of ships was just beginning but has been over-used. --do ncr am 16:29, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, "capital ships are generally assumed to be notable", these are not capital ships, here is the definition from the lead of Capital ship - "The capital ships of a navy are its most important warships; and are traditionally much larger than other naval vessels. A capital ship is generally a leading or a primary ship in a naval fleet.", these are not warships, and are not a leading or primary ship in a naval fleet, about 500 were made during WWII. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:39, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Woops, you're right about that. All the same, lists of ships are welcome here; I can't believe we'd wish to remove the Liberty ships, and the Type T2 tankers were comparable in size to them, in some cases bigger, (and given the critical job of a tanker, in importance too). Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:52, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The list could be better presented by giving a brief history of each vessel, as per the various lists covering the Empire ships. There is WP:NORUSH to write the articles on the individual ships, and the redlinks do show the progress of the task. Mjroots (talk) 17:50, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the list appears to be well defined, useful, and within policy. The list components appear to be notable. The fact that most of the entries are redlinks does not seem to me to be a valid argument for deletion, on the contrary, the list alerts the reader to the fact that many of these articles have yet to be created. Gatoclass (talk) 18:19, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - its a list not an article, if its within policy it should be kept. Some of the redlinks may be able to be linked. Pennsy22 (talk) 04:52, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, i hope the other T2 tanker pages are better sourced than this one - USNS Bull Run (T-AO-156) (i promise, randomly chosen), only one reference to what looks like a fan page/memorial page - see website creator's ancestor page. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:31, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
CommentComment: Well here's another then. NavSource Online: Service Ship Photo Archive USNS Bull Run (T-AO-156) Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:52, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The quality of other articles is irrelevant. Parsecboy (talk) 09:59, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Coolabahapple: WP:SOFIXIT then! here's a source that links to pages which give good info on such things as dimensions, engine details, tonnages, port of registry, Official Number, Code Letters etc. etc. Mjroots (talk) 11:54, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
thanks for the sources that show their existence, i will not take up the invite to improve the tanker articles, but will scuttle back from whence i came as this looks like a consensus keep will be the result. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:50, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep - it seems the nominator has not done his/her due diligence on this one. This list is obviously within policy and long-established practice - there are dozens and dozens of lists of various types of ships. List of battlecruisers is an example of what this list can someday become. The fact that the list only contains perfectly acceptable WP:REDLINKS and redirects is irrelevant. Parsecboy (talk) 09:59, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - needs work and could use more detail but is a valid "list" of type of ships. Kierzek (talk) 15:07, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep And the article now has an {{under construction}} tag and is being improved. --Lineagegeek (talk) 22:01, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per all the above.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 00:00, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per others, and per my comment above about "other stuff exists" no longer applying. --do ncr am 16:29, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.