Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HMS Justinian

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 Horatio Hornblower#Ships_featured . Black Kite (t) (c) 10:38, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

HMS Justinian

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

I'm a big fan of Horatio Hornblower, but this is a bit much. There's no need to create an article for each ship he served on. They're mostly just plot summaries that are already covered in the novel articles. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:03, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:

Merge all to List of fictional ships from the Horation Hornblower series 76.66.196.13 (talk) 05:25, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all to Horatio Hornblower. The individual ships don't justify an article, but I don't even think a full list would justify one. There is a nicely formated and comprehensive list here, to which further information could easily be added. That, I think, would suffice.--Korruski^Talk 13:25, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have long meant to follow up on this consensus to cite/merge much of this content into Horatio Hornblower or perhaps a separate list. While I believe most of these ship articles can rightly be redirected with minimal, if any, merge, I believe there's sufficient fodder suggested at the Justinian talk page to instead believe that an article-by-article selective merge and redirect is the best course. --EEMIV (talk) 03:30, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all to Horatio Hornblower#Ships_featured or some appropriate target, per Korruski. Ray^Talk 05:43, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing nom If the consensus is to delete or merge these articles, a CFD should be started for Category:Hornblower ships. Ray^Talk 06:47, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all to Horatio Hornblower#Ships_featured as per most everyone. Edward321 (talk) 23:49, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- I agree that these articles should contain a bare minimum of plot points. Geo Swan (talk) 01:04, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- I disagree with creating a List of fictional ships from the Horation Hornblower series. HMS Clorinda is just as deserving of an entry in List of fictional sailing frigates. HMS Justinian is just as deserving of an entry in List of fictional ships of the line. Both vessels deserve an entry in List of fictional ships. If we cram all the details into a single article it simply isn't properly possible for other articles that want to link to the topic to do so. If something is worthy of a wikilink it is worthy of an article of its own. Geo Swan (talk) 01:07, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- I have three technical reservations to the idea of redirecting these articles to Horatio Hornblower#Ships_featured. I know wikilinks to subsection heading is widely used in the WP: namespace. And I know that this technique is lightly used in the article namespace. This technique should not be used at all, in the article namespace because two of the most powerful features of our underlying software only work for wikilinks that link to a whole article. One contributor can innocently change a section heading, possibly only correcting a single character's spelling or capitalization. They have no way of telling that that section heading is part of an incoming wikilink, and that their minor correction will break the link. But it will break the link. Each use of this technique is a disaster just waiting to happen. If it is worth linking to it is worth a whole article. 01:09, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Comment -- Wikilinks to Horatio Hornblower#Ships_featured or Horatio Hornblower#Ships_Hornblower sailed in is a bad idea, because there is no "what links here" for section headings. The "what links here" feature is one of our most powerful features, and it shouldn't be sacrificed without a good reason. If it is worth linking to it is worth a whole article. Geo Swan (talk) 01:10, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- Wikilinks to Horatio Hornblower#Ships_featured or Horatio Hornblower#Ships_Hornblower sailed in is a bad idea, because we can put Horatio Hornblower or HMS Justinian on our watchlists. We can't put Horatio Hornblower#Ships_Hornblower sailed in on our watchlists. We shouldn't squander the value of very useful features for no real benefit. If it is worth linking to it is worth a whole article. Geo Swan (talk) 01:15, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all -- for the reasons given above. Geo Swan (talk) 01:18, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Where do the weight, length and complement numbers come from? It's been a while since I last read the books, but I don't recall most of them being mentioned. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:25, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. For those people objecting to the merge to a section heading, I agree. Please note that my !vote was not to do this, but to merge simply to Horatio Hornblower. I only mentioned the section as the obvious place to put any useful content taken from this article. Other commenters may have misunderstood what I was saying, but their comments are not actually 'per Korruski' :p--Korruski^Talk 09:22, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all, probably to a separate list. The ships might as well be fictional characters themselves, no? So why not their own list article? Jclemens (talk) 15:30, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all and expand. Though there ought to be no reason not to have a combined article, in practice I consider it best to keep separate articles for all major elements of important fiction. If we merge into combined articles, content will be lost. Important content, by those who probably think it enough to have a list of the ships matched up with the years and the individual novels, without discussing the role of these key elements of setting in the story. There's a literature discussing it enough to provide some sources, some of which are mentioned in the linked talk p. discussion. The only hope for keeping content is to keep separate articles. That's not to say these are good or even adequate articles--they're sketchy and absurd, and something could be said for the view that the content is not worth preserving, and is best started over. I disagree with that approach. I think that for everyone here confident enough to can write an article from scratch, 5 or 10 people can expand one, often working bit by bit, as shown by the history of most of our good articles, and facilitating this is the main advantages of communal writing on a wiki in the first place. DGG ( talk ) 21:35, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all to a separate list. Seems like a valid compromise for articles that are basically just WP:PLOT summaries which goes against WP:NOT. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:34, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
merge suitable way to treat nonnotable fictional content. Create a list and build that up. 24.114.233.34 (talk) 17:05, 2 November 2010 (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.