Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Soho class frigate

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 Speedy keep per WP:SNOW. (Non-admin closure.) Vicenarian ^{(Said | Done)} 17:20, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Soho class frigate[edit]

Unsourced stub, seems to be based off of non-RS website AboveTopSecret.com (http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread285661/pg1#pid3243812). — NRen2k5^(TALK), 19:27, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, although it is lacking sources in number, the existance is real and would be notable.Hell In A Bucket (talk) 19:31, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A one-of-a-kind naval ship is certainly notable, and Jane's Fighting Ships is one of the world's most respected references. (Off topic but please compare the length of the WP articles Jane's Fighting Ships and Jane's Addiction, for a laugh.)Northwestgnome (talk) 22:55, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Laugh? Rather, relief; the other way round would be scary. The world hasn't gone mad and we're not in the middle of WW4 yet. NVO (talk) 04:41, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This seems notable. I am concerned about possible copy vio of image though. Capitalismojo (talk) 23:14, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image lacks a NFR. Mjroots (talk) 07:35, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Ship classes and individual ships meet WP:N. Mjroots (talk) 07:35, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —AustralianRupert (talk) 10:10, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a real ship design (it's listed as being active with the North Korean Navy on page 395 of the 2009 edition of The Military Balance and I think that I've seen it in Jane's - both are very reliable sources) and warships are automatically notable given the level of coverage they receive. The article needs sources though. Nick-D (talk) 10:26, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The reference in the article certainly looks reliable enough. Also shows up on one of my favorite semi-reliable sources: [1]. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:12, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I should note that I added the reference yesterday, after the article had been nominated for deletion. It was previously unreferenced. Nick-D (talk) 11:40, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, per SNOW and because the reasons for deletion cited by the nominator are no longer a problem. Nyttend (talk) 13:43, 29 July 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.