Knowledge (XXG)

:Articles for deletion/HMS Constance (1880) - Knowledge (XXG)

Source 📝

417:
to be notable. I'd be amazed if sufficent sources didn't exist on this industrial-era British warship to get it across the notability threshold without too much effort. From the way in which the nomination is written it would seem that no check for sources was conducted before nominating this article
522:
following types of units and formations are likely, but not certain, to have such coverage and therefore likely, but not certain, to be suitable for inclusion: 4.Warships, including submarines, commissioned in recognised naval forces. Examples include HMAS Sydney, USS Enterprise and SMS Blücher....
521:
As for any subject on Knowledge (XXG), presumption of notability for a military unit or formation depends wholly on the existence of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. The consensus within the Military history WikiProject is that the
152: 481:
I grow tired of these repeated AfDs for commissioned warships. They're worthy of inclusion even if they're only a single line stub. A less than ideal situation, but worthy nonetheless.--
331: 209:
Yet another AFD from my own personal wikipedia stalker, how wonderful. I am still looking for sources, currently I am finding and using sources for another article I created today
525:
This ship fails the test. As a small ship that was in service for a short period during which the Royal Navy was not engaged in war, it is unlikely to have drawn any attention.
146: 113: 304: 358: 584:
threshold of 100/100. As a commissioned warship of the Royal Navy, it is notable enough to sustain an article. Coverage in at least two books means it passes
86: 81: 90: 73: 392:
to establish notability: did the nominator check them? And yes, it's probably better to work on this sort of article in userspace first.
167: 134: 17: 397: 251:
And you ought not continue your battlefield conduct in following me around, I am quite sure there is a rule against such.
128: 546:
A poorly thought out nomination, with no apparent attempt to see whether or not any attention was drawn to this vessel.
612: 36: 469: 393: 233:
you create articles. And since you had not established notability when you created the article, you should not have
183:
No evidence provided for the notability of this Royal Navy ship, which was one of seven ships of the same name. The
124: 597: 572: 555: 538: 507: 490: 473: 444: 427: 401: 377: 350: 323: 295: 260: 246: 222: 200: 55: 534: 242: 196: 77: 174: 611:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
486: 465: 256: 218: 184: 140: 530: 503: 238: 210: 192: 69: 61: 515: 453: 410: 160: 568: 482: 371: 344: 317: 581: 529:
is a link to a picture of another corvette commissioned at the same time and now in a museum.
593: 29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
49: 440: 423: 252: 214: 585: 457: 551: 526: 499: 461: 564: 366: 339: 312: 188: 52: 589: 107: 436: 419: 274: 547: 435:- You have made a good argument for improvement but a poor one for deletion.-- 272:
no indication of notability right now. Use your 7 days to find some :)
413:(which is an essay but widely accepted) commissioned warships are 605:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
234: 103: 99: 95: 159: 388:
There are probably enough references in Google Books
332:
list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions
173: 213:an am expanding both articles as I find sourcing. 418:for deletion - this is really unhelpful conduct. 39:). No further edits should be made to this page. 615:). No further edits should be made to this page. 498:. Warships are generally held to be notable. -- 563:per "keep" comments above. Notability exists. — 456:, furthermore article subject appears to pass 191:, provides more information than the article. 305:list of Military-related deletion discussions 8: 359:list of History-related deletion discussions 357:Note: This debate has been included in the 330:Note: This debate has been included in the 303:Note: This debate has been included in the 356: 329: 302: 18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion 7: 24: 460:via multiple mentions in various 237:before you had established it. 229:You should determine notability 580:- The ship easily exceeds the 1: 632: 598:06:18, 15 March 2011 (UTC) 573:01:28, 15 March 2011 (UTC) 556:01:24, 15 March 2011 (UTC) 539:00:15, 15 March 2011 (UTC) 508:23:54, 14 March 2011 (UTC) 491:01:20, 15 March 2011 (UTC) 474:23:34, 14 March 2011 (UTC) 445:23:09, 14 March 2011 (UTC) 428:21:53, 14 March 2011 (UTC) 402:21:40, 14 March 2011 (UTC) 378:21:36, 14 March 2011 (UTC) 351:21:35, 14 March 2011 (UTC) 324:21:35, 14 March 2011 (UTC) 296:21:27, 14 March 2011 (UTC) 261:18:43, 14 March 2011 (UTC) 247:18:02, 14 March 2011 (UTC) 235:removed the notability tag 223:17:50, 14 March 2011 (UTC) 201:17:38, 14 March 2011 (UTC) 56:06:41, 15 March 2011 (UTC) 608:Please do not modify it. 32:Please do not modify it. 524: 394:Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus 519: 390:"HMS Constance" 1880 211:HMS Constance (1846) 70:HMS Constance (1880) 62:HMS Constance (1880) 44:The result was 466:RightCowLeftCoast 380: 362: 353: 335: 326: 308: 623: 610: 462:reliable sources 374: 369: 363: 347: 342: 336: 320: 315: 309: 294: 292: 289: 286: 283: 280: 277: 178: 177: 163: 111: 93: 34: 631: 630: 626: 625: 624: 622: 621: 620: 619: 613:deletion review 606: 372: 367: 345: 340: 318: 313: 290: 287: 284: 281: 278: 275: 273: 120: 84: 68: 65: 37:deletion review 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 629: 627: 618: 617: 601: 600: 575: 558: 541: 510: 493: 476: 447: 430: 404: 382: 381: 354: 327: 299: 298: 266: 265: 264: 263: 226: 225: 185:disambiguation 181: 180: 117: 64: 59: 42: 41: 25: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 628: 616: 614: 609: 603: 602: 599: 595: 591: 587: 583: 579: 578:Snowball keep 576: 574: 570: 566: 562: 559: 557: 553: 549: 545: 542: 540: 536: 532: 528: 523: 517: 514: 511: 509: 505: 501: 497: 494: 492: 488: 484: 483:Sturmvogel 66 480: 477: 475: 471: 467: 463: 459: 455: 451: 448: 446: 442: 438: 434: 431: 429: 425: 421: 416: 412: 408: 405: 403: 399: 395: 391: 387: 384: 383: 379: 376: 375: 370: 360: 355: 352: 349: 348: 343: 333: 328: 325: 322: 321: 316: 306: 301: 300: 297: 293: 271: 268: 267: 262: 258: 254: 250: 249: 248: 244: 240: 236: 232: 228: 227: 224: 220: 216: 212: 208: 205: 204: 203: 202: 198: 194: 190: 189:HMS Constance 186: 176: 172: 169: 166: 162: 158: 154: 151: 148: 145: 142: 139: 136: 133: 130: 126: 123: 122:Find sources: 118: 115: 109: 105: 101: 97: 92: 88: 83: 79: 75: 71: 67: 66: 63: 60: 58: 57: 54: 51: 47: 40: 38: 33: 27: 26: 19: 607: 604: 577: 560: 543: 520: 512: 495: 478: 449: 432: 414: 406: 389: 385: 365: 338: 311: 269: 230: 206: 182: 170: 164: 156: 149: 143: 137: 131: 121: 45: 43: 31: 28: 253:Tentontunic 215:Tentontunic 147:free images 516:WP:MILUNIT 500:Necrothesp 454:WP:MILUNIT 411:WP:MILUNIT 582:WP:SHIPS 565:Diiscool 114:View log 590:Mjroots 513:Comment 415:assumed 386:Comment 153:WP refs 141:scholar 87:protect 82:history 50:WP:SNOW 586:WP:GNG 458:WP:GNG 452:- per 437:Ykraps 420:Nick-D 270:Delete 231:before 187:page, 125:Google 91:delete 548:Benea 518:says: 168:JSTOR 129:books 108:views 100:watch 96:links 16:< 594:talk 569:talk 561:Keep 552:talk 544:Keep 535:talk 527:Here 504:talk 496:Keep 487:talk 479:Keep 470:talk 464:. -- 450:Keep 441:talk 433:Keep 424:talk 409:per 407:Keep 398:talk 257:talk 243:talk 219:talk 207:Keep 197:talk 161:FENS 135:news 104:logs 78:talk 74:edit 46:keep 531:TFD 373:466 364:-- 346:466 337:-- 319:466 310:-- 239:TFD 193:TFD 175:TWL 112:– ( 596:) 588:. 571:) 554:) 537:) 506:) 489:) 472:) 443:) 426:) 400:) 368:JN 361:. 341:JN 334:. 314:JN 307:. 259:) 245:) 221:) 199:) 155:) 106:| 102:| 98:| 94:| 89:| 85:| 80:| 76:| 53:Ed 48:. 592:( 567:( 550:( 533:( 502:( 485:( 468:( 439:( 422:( 396:( 291:3 288:8 285:F 282:J 279:T 276:C 255:( 241:( 217:( 195:( 179:) 171:· 165:· 157:· 150:· 144:· 138:· 132:· 127:( 119:( 116:) 110:) 72:(

Index

Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
deletion review
WP:SNOW
Ed
06:41, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
HMS Constance (1880)
HMS Constance (1880)
edit
talk
history
protect
delete
links
watch
logs
views
View log
Google
books
news
scholar
free images
WP refs
FENS
JSTOR
TWL
disambiguation
HMS Constance
TFD
talk

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.