Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RFA Fort Rosalie (A186)

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. —Xezbeth 06:49, May 28, 2005 (UTC)

RFA Fort Rosalie (A186)

Article does not establish notability, contains a large empty table with no information which suggests such information is difficult to verify --TimPope 07:25, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

• Expand or delete Nateji77 07:46, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I have tried adding a few figures to the table from [1] and [2], and hope this is a valid stub now, even though I see that it still needs more expansion. I think navy ships are usually kept. Sjakkalle 08:38, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. It's a Royal Navy ship that participated in a war, looks notable to me. Leithp 11:07, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, highly notable. Kappa 11:13, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. It is sub-stub that it is true, but it is an encyclopaedic subject. For example, run a Google search on "RFA Fort Rosalie" and there are 543 results, although a number of those are Wikipedia mirrors. A naval auxiliary with nearly 30 years' service certainly qualifies for the Wikipedia. David Newton 12:08, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I can see why it was listed, but the article currently in place is very useful. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:13, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Zzyzx11 (Talk) 13:49, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Big ship. Klonimus 19:57, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Sjakkale's version and hopefully it can be further expanded. Well done Sjakkale. Capitalistroadster 21:35, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.