Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Current Indonesian Navy ships

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. -Wafulz 15:05, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Current Indonesian Navy ships[edit]

Origional research list of ships, most of whom are not notable. This doesn't seem like an encyclopediac list. Sefringle^Talk 05:12, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Daft nomination. This 'Origional research' is sourced from Jane's Fighting Ships, which is the military equipment 'bible', and now links to the existing article on the Indonesian Navy. Would a list of Royal Navy or U.S. Navy ships not be notable? Of course this is "encyclopediac ". If there are any inaccuracies they can be amended but a list of current ships in a Navy seems entirely legitimate to me. Nick mallory 05:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Nick mallory. Probably needs a better name like List of ships of the Indonesian Navy , as article titles and text should avoid dependent time references like "current". Also I don't see any reason that individual ships of the Indonesian navy are non-notable; these can be considered on a case-by-case basis as the redlinks get filled in. cab 05:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletions. cab 05:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move to List of ships of the Indonesian Navy. (ISTR some kerfuffle over whether it should be List of ships of the X Navy or List of X Navy ships, but both forms appear to remain in use.) --Dhartung | Talk 05:28, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wary Keep if it is indeed accurate and reliably referenced. But how on earth are we to keep this list up to date? What happens if no one edits it for 12 months - I will bet it will then be out of date and hence inaccurate. Merbabu 05:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Further comment - actually, just because there is a number of Indonesian navy ships and we are accepting the sources for the list as reliable, does that actually mean we should create such a list? Is it really encyclopedic, significant, and useful to readers? Or just a list made because this site gives us the technical ability? Ie, simply because we can create the list, does that mean we should? Just asking at the moment. Merbabu 07:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - You're arguing Jane's Fighting Ships isn't reliable? That any article relating to something whose state of knowledge might change in the future - e.g. every article on Wikipedia - should be deleted because things might change in the future? How would this list not be useful to readers who, I don't know, wanted to know about the numbers and types of ships in the Indonesian Navy? Seriously, do you actually grasp the point of Wikipedia, the constantly updated encyclopedia which anyone can edit, at all Merbabu? Nick mallory 08:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - If you really have to be uncivil, I suggest that next time you at least make sure you haven't completely misunderstood my two posts. --Merbabu 10:13, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - How have I misunderstood your two posts exactly? There are navy lists of ships for lots of other navies and everyone else agrees with me that this list is, by definition, notable The idea that because an article of this type will inevitably become outdated at some point in the future if it's not updated seems to miss wikipedia's one great asset of being able to be updated very quickly. Just because you think that it's unlikely that someone will update it in the future doesn't make that the case. I'm a loss to understand the misunderstanding or your accusation of incivility. Nick mallory 10:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        "Daft nomination" and "do you actually grasp the point of Wikipedia ... at all" could probably be phrased better or remain unsaid. cab 11:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep and close. Based on the nom's other AFDs today I am suspicious of WP:POINT. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 06:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are voting based on the nominator rather than the value of the article.--Sefringle^Talk 07:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per everyone else above. We have lists like this for, say, the Canadian Coast Guard, among others, so I don't see how this differs. However, I would say some of the ship articles, like KRI Ajak, are NN or should be merged over. It's notable enough. Guroadrunner 07:13, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Navy Ships are notable and it is sourced. Englishrose 09:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Change per Dhartung and cab - the Indonesian project - one of two projects this list could belong to - has lists with the title 'lists' and articles that are lists should be named as such - otherwise delete - the Indonesian project has enough problem with fraud articles - we do not need articles that claim to be articles that are in fact lists SatuSuro 11:11, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well-sourced lists are hardly "fraud articles"; they are an essential part of an encyclopedia and a resource for further development. See WP:LIST for some guidelines. cab 11:16, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please note - I am talking about the Indonesian project in general not necessarily just this list - please do not take me out of context - however the article does constitute one while it has the current title - one janes ref is hardly what I would call well sourced considering the complex politics and intricacies of Indonesian military equipment acquirements over the last twenty years. Cannot some helpful person close this rather lame afd soon? SatuSuro 11:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, I think Satu was taken out of context (not intentionally and in good faith). Further, i actually don't think there is one person actually supporting deletion, apart from the original nomination which was made in good faith and is not unreasonable in principle. --Merbabu 11:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I created this article originally to prevent the loss of the data when it was removed from the Military of Indonesia page. For the page name, I ruthlessly copied the format and style from the Current Royal Australian Navy ships page. Noting SatuSuro's comments, I have also now changed it's class to List. Finding authoritative sources online has been difficult (and my Bahasa isnt quite up to wading through the TNI-AL website) - hence my referencing the hard-copy Jane's. Once I have completed updating the list (as per the 2007 JFS), I will attempt to source some more references (most likely hard-copy).PalawanOz 13:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletions. -- Carom 14:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If they were important they could be listed on the Indonesian Navy page instead of having their own. I don't see how "current" deserves a mention. I don't think a title or a name gives notability, especially without any information listed. NobutoraTakeda 16:26, 16 July 2007 (UTC) This user has been banned and !vote has been stricken. [1][reply]
Keep lack of citations worry me, but I dont think that should be the sole reason to delete. This list would also be maintable due to the size of the navy Corpx 18:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

additional comment - consider renaming Current Indonesian Navy ships to List of Current Indonesian Navy ships ? Guroadrunner 21:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have issue with any article with "current" in the title, as it would have to continuously be updated. Current is unencyclopediac for the simple reason that an encyclopedia should be true now, and true in the future. Something titled crurent will be outdated shortly.--Sefringle^Talk 03:14, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to List of current Indonesian Navy ships per above. The use of "current" is important to contrast with a (potential) list of former ships, ones that are notable but no longer in commission. Look at, for example, List of former ships of the Finnish Navy and List of current ships of the Finnish Navy. This list should only be titled without "current" if it is meant to include all former ships as well. Looking at those, perhaps we should include the disclaimer they use:

A list of current Finnish Navy vessels. The list might not be fully up-to-date or complete.

This is an incomplete list, which may never be able to satisfy certain standards for completeness. Revisions and sourced additions are welcome. (i.e. {{Dynamic list}})

That would allay concerns about quick outdating, as long as it is kept up to date periodically (which I expect it would, as much as any other Wikipedia page). If a list of former ships is short, it could be added to make a single List of Indonesian Navy ships, with some sign to indicate which are no longer in commission. Does anyone know how long that would run? Along these lines, I also support renaming Current Royal New Zealand Navy ships, Current Royal Australian Navy ships, and Ships of the Royal Netherlands Navy (which includes current and former ships) to lists. Rigadoun (talk) 15:56, 17 July 2007 (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.