Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of ship decommissionings in 1801

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 delete‎. ✗plicit 15:01, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of ship decommissionings in 1801

[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)

A 'list' of 1 redlinked ship of unknown size or importance, sourced to a website where the full entry reads "AGGERSHUS, cavalry pram (1786-1801)". Unlikely that "ship decommissionings in 1801" is a notable topic on its own, so far we have served the readers this extremely unsatisfactory page for 4 years, time to put an end to it. Fram (talk) 13:56, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: ~~Lists of people~~, History, and Transportation. Fram (talk) 13:56, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominated are:

I have added two other pages, for 1807 and 1811, to the nom. These three seem to be the only pages before 1860 we have for this. The two I added have two and one entries similar to the one above (from the same website), and both so much care has gone into the creation, and so much interest has there been from later readers/editors, that in both cases the text on the pages is about commissionings, not decommissionings, e.g. "In cases where no official commissioning ceremony was held, the date of service entry may be used instead." Fram (talk) 14:01, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:34, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, having looked through quite a few of these List of ship decommissionings in YEAR articles, it would be even more appropriate to merge them by decade, or even by century as there are plenty more that feature just one ship. Ajf773 (talk) 09:54, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The inclusion criteria seems rather vague. HMS Alban (1806) was a British ship captured by the Danes in 1810 and recaptured by the British in 1811. Its inclusion on the 1811 list is presumably because "capture" automatically means the ship is no longer commissioned by the previous navy. By the same logic, these lists should then include ships that were sunk, as they would also lose their commission. I'm not sure of the value these lists of decommissioning provide. From Hill To Shore (talk) 10:48, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Even a category won't be enough. killer bee  15:03, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unnecessary. The lists of ships by nation and by launch year are enough. Separately/unrelated to this !vote, if someone really wants this data, I assume it could be obtained through Wikidata. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 19:11, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a pretty clear Delete per nom, however given the existence of many articles for years with more notable decommissionings such as 1946 it could be possible to have a page for decomissioning across each respective decade or perhaps even the entirety or half of the 19th century. In which case, a redirect could possibly be warranted. For example the article for 1872 has just one entry, if the ships could have an article created then it could work but unless that can be figured out my stance remains as Delete. N1TH Music (talk) 18:41, 14 January 2024 (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.