Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dismantling of Russian Nuclear Ships and Submarines

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 redirect to Decommissioning of Russian nuclear-powered vessels. Kudos to Clarityfiend for writing this new article. Sandstein 12:14, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dismantling of Russian Nuclear Ships and Submarines

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

Contested prod. Article does not follow its title, being merely a partial list of Russian nuclar ships, and has been left incomplete for over a year. MikeWazowski (talk) 22:50, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep and rename Decommissioning of Russian nuclear-powered vessels (nuclear wessels for Star Trek fans). This is a major issue. See [1][2][3][4]. Delete. On second look, some of the listed ships have been scrapped and others are in active service. I'm going to start a new article on the decommissioning problem. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:15, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article is not about the subject at all; it is a half-built table that says nothing about decommissioning. The subject is likely of insufficent notability to merit an article of its own vs. a section in Russian Navy. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:42, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy - While his English is poor, I think the creator was trying to indicate on his talk page that he wants to continue working on it. I agree that as it is now, the title and content don't really match or add to WP, but I see no reason that the creator shouldn't be allowed to keep working on it in his user space to see if it can develop into something a little more meaningful. – RobinHood70 ^talk 18:40, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Looks like Clarityfiend's new article is on-track, and by only redirecting rather than deleting, the author of the original article can more easily go back and copy any relevant information out to the new article. – RobinHood70 ^talk 23:21, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Userification would be OK. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:39, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:39, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Userify the topic is very likely to be notable, lets encourage someone who clearly wants to write the thing. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:26, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Userify Brad (talk) 21:28, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I've begun writing Decommissioning of Russian nuclear-powered vessels. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:37, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the new (and very good looking) Decommissioning of Russian nuclear-powered vessels article. Nick-D (talk) 22:45, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per the above - great work Clarityfiend. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:13, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:23, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per the above. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:44, 12 December 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.