Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HMS Saint

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 keep. Clear consensus not to delete. Whether to convert to a list, a dab, or remain as a set index, can be discussed outside of AfD. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:22, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

HMS Saint

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Not a proper set index. (No ships were named after Simon Templar.) Clarityfiend (talk) 10:44, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:59, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:12, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and convert to a dab page. This is a useful page for wikipedia navigation. -- GreenC 16:26, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also not a proper dab page per WP:partial title match. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:55, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've read the rationale for why WP:partial title match exists and I don't think it's a good fit for this case due to the large number of ships and different ways to write Saint. The reason is you might remember the ship was called "HMS Saint <something>" and this page will help you navigate, versus looking through search results which can be incomplete and more difficult ("Saint", "St", "St.", "San" etc). Unless you have another idea how we might make finding the "HMS Saint" ship articles easier to navigate. -- GreenC 22:37, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed the last sentence of WP:partial title match gives two recommendations; if one those were implemented this page could be deleted. -- GreenC 22:42, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a dab page's job to provide navigational aids for fragments of a title, just on the off chance that somebody is looking for HMS Saint Something. The rare person who does needs to look St. Elsewhere. What's next? A list of books starting with The Joy of ...? Clarityfiend (talk) 08:42, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As for the recommendations, they are for a "particular term"; "HMS Saint" isn't one. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:44, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think the guideline means by "particular term"? -- GreenC 16:17, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Something that comes up at least occasionally in conversation, text, etc. "HMS Saint" doesn't. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:59, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That seems like a just-so interpretation of "particular term" -- GreenC 13:20, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"It is not a dab page's job to provide navigational aids for fragments of a title"

Not a DISAMBIG's, but it is what a WP:SETINDEX is for. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:31, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Per SETINDEX, "A set index article (SIA) is a list article about a set of items of a specific type that also share the same (or similar) name." (bolding mine) The same name, not the same fragment of a name. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:22, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can they make it any clearer for you? "and List of ships of the United States Navy named Enterprise describes a set of ships. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:27, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can I make it any clearer to you? Enterprise is the complete name of a ship. No Royal Navy ships are named Saint. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:31, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The guideline exists for a reason, to protect us from a random collection of like-things with no real value other than collecting like things, which can have endless permutations. Fair enough. But deletion discussions can have usefulness in mind. WP:USEFUL says "If reasons are given, 'usefulness' can be the basis of a valid argument for inclusion. An encyclopedia should, by definition, be informative and useful to its readers." Setindex is probably the closest match for what it is. -- GreenC 21:16, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as set index. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:29, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as set index, per GreenC, etc. Spokoyni (talk) 09:41, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This also constitutes WP:OR, as there is no discussion (outside a forum or two) or Royal Navy convention regarding naming ships after saints. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:29, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as set index. The collection of article links into disambiguation or set index pages does not constitute original research. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:43, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) I've notified the editors at Wikipedia: WikiProject Ships. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:45, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and convert to a list article. It is a bad fit for a disambiguation page but I can't see anything wrong with converting it into a formal list with references. As a side issue, the introductory paragraph is WP:OR because it says that all the ships are either named after saints or named after places named after saints. It doesn't take account of ships named after people who were named after places which were named after saints (John Jervis, 1st Earl of St Vincent is an example but there could be other anomalies buried in the list that don't fit the description). The latter point is more of a content issue though and not directly relevant to a deletion discussion. From Hill To Shore (talk) 20:13, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dammit, you beat me to it. I finally figured out it was (trying to be) a List of Royal Navy ships named after saints, but as such, it fails WP:LISTN. Nobody out there has compiled such a list AFAIK. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:03, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Failing LISTN is not really relevant to a deletion discussion because it says, "There is no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex and cross-categorization lists (such as "Lists of X of Y") or what other criteria may justify the notability of stand-alone lists. Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability." From Hill To Shore (talk) 08:11, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It also states "Editors are still urged to demonstrate list notability via the grouping itself before creating stand-alone lists." Clarityfiend (talk) 08:35, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, which makes it a recommendation, not a requirement. From Hill To Shore (talk) 08:52, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How is this anything other than trivia? There is no saint class of ship. This is no more significant than List of Royal Navy ships named after mythological figures or List of United States Navy ships named after fish. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:12, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Move ~~without redirect~~ "HMS Saint" is not a proper list title for a List of Royal Navy ships named after saints. ~~Furthermore, HMS Saint is an implausible redirect to such a list.~~ --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 18:26, 13 March 2020 (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.