Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of ship launches in 1870

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. (non-admin closure) Erik9 (talk) 01:12, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of ship launches in 1870[edit]

Completely unnecessary, random list of a few (8) ships launched in 1870. Why 1870?? Surely more than 8 ships were launched in 1870 and I'm quite positive not every ship launched in 1870 was from the UK. Perhaps it would be better as a category to classify NOTABLE ships launched in that year. Article has not changed since November 2008. HJMitchell You rang? 21:58, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's part of the 1870 in transportation category and part of a series of lists of ship launchings for each year, there's a template at the bottom of the page. Wouldn't it be easier just to list all of them for the AfD instead of doing it piecemeal? Drawn Some (talk) 22:07, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Commissioned naval vessels, like these early battleships, ironclads and rams, have been judged notable and kept in previous AFDs. The major ships of one of the world's major naval powers is hardly "random." I cannot think of any exceptions. The references are in the individual articles. A "List of" is presumed to include only notable things. Lists in this series are consistent with the guideline WP:LIST. If you can find more naval vessels launched in 1870, add them. The references in which to look are at the bottom of the pages about the individual ships. Edison (talk) 22:19, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Part of a wider scheme of other similar articles. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 22:20, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per above. Iowateen (talk) 23:42, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and hopefully merge into a list of ship launches in the 1870s. That would solve the question of "why 1870" since decades are an acceptable method of categorization. Them From Space 06:33, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:59, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a list of notable ships as should be obvious from the brief notes in the article itself, plus the fact there are articles for every ship listed. It is in no way random and organizes the information in a way a category could not. Edward321 (talk) 13:07, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I was the originator of this list and many, many others in the ship launches/commissionings/decommissionings/shipwreck series. I also no longer edit Wikipedia, and found this AfD on a rare visit. I myself find lists quite useful, as others obviously do not. (I found categories useless, but wouldn't contemplate asking for them to be deleted). Each of the lists I began took a great deal of time to compile. If you disagree, delete this small list and try to start it again from scratch, and then try a larger one. And if you believe it lacks content, don't complain, add to it - it's not a difficult concept. I fully intended to continue adding to these lists, however debates exactly like this one indicated it was a total waste of my time to continue, and this precipitated my exit as an editor. Also, the lists were rapidly tagged, sometimes within minutes, for lack of references. Why reference when each launch is linked to the full article which is referenced? So ends my comment, and further will not be forthcoming. This is my opinion only, and everyone is entitled to theirs. Now, back to obscurity Camerong (talk) 12:39, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep for a ridiculous nomination. Nominator needs to read WP:CLN to familiarize him/herself with the synergistic nature of categories and lists. Also, AFD is not the place for articles that merely need improvement. Using Category:1870 ships (already linked at the bottom of the article page) I expanded the list by almost 50% in about 20 minutes time. — Bellhalla (talk) 04:58, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. —Bellhalla (talk) 05:04, 18 May 2009 (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.