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. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:56, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sealed orders (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Nothing more than a definition with no real possibility of expansion. The dab page should be moved back. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:54, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• keep I would hope for expansion here. There's certainly scope for it. The UK nuclear submarines would be one direction for starters. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:06, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I have expanded it. Andrew D. (talk) 04:56, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:49, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as this is acceptable. SwisterTwister talk 05:34, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Looks well sourced (in the conventional sense, even). It's a nice little article that has checked all the guideline boxes. --69.204.153.39 (talk) 04:48, 11 October 2015 (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.