Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HTMS Pattani

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The result was Nomination withdrawn following improvement, referencing and long-standing consesus at WP:SHIPS the ships of over 100 tons / 100 feet long are notable enough to sustain articles. Mjroots (talk) 12:06, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

HTMS Pattani[edit]

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

Non-notable ship. No sources or references. ΣΑΠΦ (Sapph)^Talk 20:58, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Naval vessels are generally considered to be notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 23:16, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above Jim Sweeney (talk) 23:42, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Here are details about its acquisition and specs. There are also several mentions of her tour patrolling the waters off Somalia.[1][2][3][4]. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:07, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - commissioned naval vessels are automatically notable. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:12, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above. All commissioned warships are covered in detail in publications such as Jane's Fighting Ships as well as the defence and general media and can be assumed to be notable. Nick-D (talk) 07:31, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Nick. Although I agree the article is fairly sparse it seems likely that there would be "significant coverage" in reliable sources so its likely notable under the WP:GNG. Anotherclown (talk) 13:26, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per arguments already made. Article is referenced, 'non-notable ship' simply isn't true. None of the nomination arguments are valid (at least any more). Benea (talk) 11:28, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw As the article is now referenced, and I have been corrected on the presumed notability of naval vessels. ΣΑΠΦ (Sapph)^Talk 15:38, 7 December 2011 (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.