Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CSTC HMCS Acadia
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 no consensus. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:00, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- CSTC HMCS Acadia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log) • Afd statistics
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable cadet training facility lacking in reliable sources and significant independent coverage per WP:MILMOS/N and WP:RS. Anotherclown (talk) 04:47, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Anotherclown (talk) 04:49, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into the HMCS Acadia article, trimming appropriately in the process. Jclemens (talk) 07:35, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: doesn't seem notable, nor covered significantly in reliable sources. I'm not entirely against a merge, but I'm not sure about the viability of the suggested merge target as it seems essentially just a dab page that really only exists because this one exists. I'm open to changing my mind after clarification, though, of course. AustralianRupert (talk) 10:44, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment HMCS Acadia is not a dab page, it's a WP:SETINDEX page (a {{shipindex}}), it's supposed to be a compact list with a short definition accompanying each entry. 76.66.203.138 (talk) 05:51, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Not sure I really understand the difference between a dab and an index page (they seem to serve the same purpose to me), but that's my failing, I guess. Anyway, I'm still not really convinced that it is an appropriate merge target. If there has really only been one ship of the name, why would there be a need for an index page? Surely the merge target would be the actual ship that bore the name in the first place (i.e CSS Acadia)? AustralianRupert (talk) 11:55, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- According to WP:LIST "They are different from disambiguation pages in that they are fully-fledged articles meant to document multiple subjects, while disambiguation pages are for navigation purposes only." eg Rail transport by country Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:34, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Not sure I really understand the difference between a dab and an index page (they seem to serve the same purpose to me), but that's my failing, I guess. Anyway, I'm still not really convinced that it is an appropriate merge target. If there has really only been one ship of the name, why would there be a need for an index page? Surely the merge target would be the actual ship that bore the name in the first place (i.e CSS Acadia)? AustralianRupert (talk) 11:55, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment HMCS Acadia is not a dab page, it's a WP:SETINDEX page (a {{shipindex}}), it's supposed to be a compact list with a short definition accompanying each entry. 76.66.203.138 (talk) 05:51, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: per AR. I share his view and his willingness to reconsider the merge. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 14:33, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Ships are notable. Shore establishments are notable. The Canadian Navy gets to decide that this is indeed one of its shore establishments. According to Google, people are more likely to be searching for information about this Arcadia than the WWII ship. It would defeat the purpose of the Wikipedia if it were not listed as one of the ships of the name. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:34, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - AFAIK this isn't either though. It is a cadet training facility named after the ship. Anotherclown (talk) 20:04, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Apparently not. It appears to carry the name and honours of the original ship. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:51, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That put the cat amoung the pigeons... IMO this isn't clear from the article, but if it can be established that would be enough to make it notable. Can you please add that to the article with a reference? Ultimately the major issue with this article is that it currently lacks reliable sources and significant independent coverage, so if this could be included then its no longer an issue. Anotherclown (talk) 20:12, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That is what the article says. I was looking for a reliable source at the official page. It says On July 29, 1978, HMCS ACADIA was officially recommissioned at CFB Cornwallis It has the HMCS in front of its name, and the same badge as the original ship. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:05, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Reading between the lines that would seem to be the implication, but I'm still unclear on one aspect: are Sea Cadet facilities commissioned shore establishments in the Canadian Navy or do they have some other status? Anotherclown (talk) 20:19, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That is what the article says. I was looking for a reliable source at the official page. It says On July 29, 1978, HMCS ACADIA was officially recommissioned at CFB Cornwallis It has the HMCS in front of its name, and the same badge as the original ship. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:05, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That put the cat amoung the pigeons... IMO this isn't clear from the article, but if it can be established that would be enough to make it notable. Can you please add that to the article with a reference? Ultimately the major issue with this article is that it currently lacks reliable sources and significant independent coverage, so if this could be included then its no longer an issue. Anotherclown (talk) 20:12, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - AFAIK this isn't either though. It is a cadet training facility named after the ship. Anotherclown (talk) 20:04, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox (talk) 22:02, 8 November 2010 (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.