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 Speedy keep. Commissioned warships are automatically notable and the material has been rearranged so it's in accordance with the normal disambiguation of ship names. Nick Dowling (talk) 07:52, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

HMS Ontario (1780)[edit]

HMS Ontario already exists, I don't think we need two pages on the subject, or a disambiguation that the ship was made in 1780 in the article subject. I would propose a merge and delete Alternatively, we could move whatever we can from HMS Ontario here. I just don't think we need two pages on the exact same subject! Fraud ^{talk to me} 01:13, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We do not need two pages on the same subject, I agree! The two articles should be merged in one, and the other stub converted to a redirect. I would make HMS Ontario (1780) the main article, and HMS Ontario - a redirect, in case some other HMS Ontario from a different era pops up. Cheers! Xenonice (talk) 01:34, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, merger complete! I removed the AfD tag. Xenonice (talk) 02:18, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I vote for merge, not delete. Shipwrecks are interesting. This is also historically interesting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.71.180.96 (talk) 02:33, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Move HMS Ontario (1780) to HMS Ontario then Delete the former. No reason to have a date in the article title if there's no ambiguity. No reason to have HMS Ontario (1780) as a redirect because it's not an expected search term. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 04:08, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the current status per User:70.51.8.9. There are others with the same name.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 07:22, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Xenonice implemented a redirect from HMS Ontario to HMS Ontario (1780) and merged the material. Obviously the merger was needed, but not obvious is that it should be located at 1780, in fact to me it seems obvious the HMS Ontario name with no 1780 should be used. See Talk:HMS Ontario (1780).

Someone else posted a stated conclusion to the AFD, to the Talk:HMS Ontario (1780) article, that the result was to "speedy redirect". I think this is not correct. It seems obvious to me that the correct name of the article is HMS Ontario, not HMS Ontario (1780), because there are no other HMS Ontario's known. And the discussion above was leaning toward doing the move in that direction. The consensus, if any, is to redirect from the 1780 article to the other one, which is how i "vote" anyhow. So, i support deletion of this HMS Ontario (1780) article, with merger/move of its material to HMS Ontario. doncram (talk) 07:03, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose there appear to be multiple HMS Ontario. The 1780 ship, the 1813 ship [1][2], the 1943 ship [3][4]. This should be rebuilt as a shipname article, like other Royal Navy shipnames, or as a dab page. 70.51.8.9 (talk) 07:09, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to boldly build a dab page now. 70.51.8.9 (talk) 07:09, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, nothing like some real information to make the decision clear. IP-man is pretty convincing, i concede. doncram (talk) 07:21, 14 June 2008 (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.