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. WP:SNOW Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:41, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

HMS Constance (1880)[edit]

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

No evidence provided for the notability of this Royal Navy ship, which was one of seven ships of the same name. The disambiguation page, HMS Constance, provides more information than the article. TFD (talk) 17:38, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 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 HMS Constance (1846) an am expanding both articles as I find sourcing. Tentontunic (talk) 17:50, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You should determine notability before you create articles. And since you had not established notability when you created the article, you should not have removed the notability tag before you had established it. TFD (talk) 18:02, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And you ought not continue your battlefield conduct in following me around, I am quite sure there is a rule against such. Tentontunic (talk) 18:43, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no indication of notability right now. Use your 7 days to find some :) CTJF83 21:27, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- JN 466 21:35, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- JN 466 21:35, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- JN 466 21:36, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are probably enough references in Google Books "HMS Constance" 1880 to establish notability: did the nominator check them? And yes, it's probably better to work on this sort of article in userspace first. Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 21:40, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:MILUNIT (which is an essay but widely accepted) commissioned warships are assumed 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 for deletion - this is really unhelpful conduct. Nick-D (talk) 21:53, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - You have made a good argument for improvement but a poor one for deletion.--Ykraps (talk) 23:09, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per WP:MILUNIT, furthermore article subject appears to pass WP:GNG via multiple mentions in various reliable sources. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:34, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 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.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:20, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Warships are generally held to be notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 23:54, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:MILUNIT says:
As for any subject on Wikipedia, 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 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....
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. Here is a link to a picture of another corvette commissioned at the same time and now in a museum. TFD (talk) 00:15, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A poorly thought out nomination, with no apparent attempt to see whether or not any attention was drawn to this vessel. Benea (talk) 01:24, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per "keep" comments above. Notability exists. —Diiscool (talk) 01:28, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball keep - The ship easily exceeds the WP:SHIPS 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 WP:GNG. Mjroots (talk) 06:18, 15 March 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.