Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/USS Weeks (DE-285)

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 merge to Rudderow class destroyer escort. Suggest someone boldly merging the other articles too Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:15, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

USS Weeks (DE-285)[edit]

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

A ship... that was never built. I'm having trouble understanding how that's notable. The sources certainly don't support notability in this case; they're just lists of ships with very little information. And an infobox that confidently reports the non-existent ship's complement, tonnage, and armament seems absurd. I could imagine perhaps a list of never-constructed ships of a particular class, but an individual article for each one? Powers ^T 20:01, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unless someone can find multiple instances of significant coverage in reliable and independent sources, pretty unlikely for a proposed but unbuilt ship. Edison (talk) 20:33, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Belongs in a class article - there were a great many ships cancelled either on the stocks or earlier as priorities changed or hostilities came to an end. She might be notable if she were a new type or significant variation on an existing class, but the article would have to be about that. --AJHingston (talk) 23:51, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the class article Rudderow class destroyer escort. The class article should have a list of ships, so this can be reduced to an entry on that list (also as a starting point for the list). 65.94.44.141 (talk) 06:18, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I agree it should be merged unless we can find more information and references. --Kumioko (talk) 18:43, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to the class article (Rudderow class destroyer escort). A sentence or maybe two there are about all the coverage needed for this planned ship, imo. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:03, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to the class article.Intothatdarkness (talk) 14:08, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment By the same token all the other articles relating to unbuilt ships of this class ought to share the fate of this one. They are:
- USS Vogelgesang (DE-284), USS Sutton (DE-286), USS William M. Wood (DE-287), USS William R. Rush (DE-288), USS Williams (DE-290) & USS Walter X. Young (DE-723). NtheP (talk) 14:10, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Move the info on those ships to the table now at Rudderow class destroyer escort#Ships. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:45, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:35, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Some never-built ships are of importance, this one - being a completely generic member of a large class - is not. The Land (talk) 15:39, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Rudderow class destroyer escort. I also agree with NtheP, same should apply for the others. A list of the cancelled ships at the class page makes sense to me. I would, however, like to preserve the info on the ships' namesakes, whatever happens. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 16:56, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I agree with Powers points but think we should merge instead of deleting. It seems absurd to me as well that the infobox somehow lays out the exact specs of a ship that never existed.Sabre ball (talk) 18:04, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Into the class article. Jim Sweeney (talk) 18:10, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the class article, it's what WP:SHIPS normally does with ships that were never built. There are exceptions, of course, but this does not fit the bill. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:15, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (incorporate the info into Rudderow-class destroyer escort). The same goes for Vogelgesang, Sutton, William M. Wood, William R. Rush, Williams & Walter X. Young. Shem (talk) 21:59, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Rudderow-class destroyer escort per the above - some unbuilt ships are notable enough for their own articles, but this doesn't seem like its one of them. Nick-D (talk) 22:44, 1 June 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.