Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HMS Sword Dance
: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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Seems to be clear consensus. (non-admin closure) – Garuda Talk! 10:21, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
=[[:HMS Sword Dance]]=
:{{la|1=HMS Sword Dance}} – (
:({{Find sources AFD|title=HMS Sword Dance}})
No evidence of notability, a random rootsweb site and a museum which hosts a model of the ship but provides only extremely minimal information. Fram (talk) 08:44, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Transportation, and Russia. Fram (talk) 08:44, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
:IF you can find a website and send a link here then I'll add it, otherwise it doesn't even make sense Woffio (talk) 23:24, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
: Sword Dance was a Dance-class minesweeper of the Royal Navy, which was employed in the North Russia intervention of the Russian Civil War - although this wasn't clear from the article when it was created or nominated. Physical details of the ship are covered in Dittmar & Colledge and Conway's (now added as references), while there is account of Sword Dance{{'}}s loss in Hepper's British Warship Losses. While the rootsweb site isn't a reliable source, it does reference two article in Naval Review magazine, which is although hidden behind a paywall, is a reliable source. This article can be expanded and may pass GNG.Nigel Ish (talk) 14:03, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
::* Keep, per Nigel notability assessment.
::Call me sentimental if you must, but in my estimation, navy vessels{{mdash}}like bugs and legislators{{mdash}}are always encyclopedic, no matter how obscure. jengod (talk) 15:43, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
::* Keep, per Nigel. Just as notable (or not) as hundreds of other ships articles Lyndaship (talk) 07:32, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
::Keep - looks like a pretty good article now Llammakey (talk) 12:55, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
{{clear}}
: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.