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 merge to SMS Möwe (1914). Sandstein 08:43, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Action of 16 January 1916[edit]

Action of 16 January 1916 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

1. This is a skirmish within an engagement. Neither primary nor secondary sources consider this material enough to be a battle in its own right. 2. This is written by an indefinitely suspended user with a history of adding essays to wikipedia. 3. It lacks SIGCOV in multiple RS necessary to meet WP:GNG. The firefight between a German cruiser and a British cargo vessel on January 16, 1916 is not described as a battle in its own right by reliable sources. It would be better to delete the page and ensure any sourced details are recorded instead in the article about the SMS Möwe 4. Given that this "battle" is not documented elsewhere, it is a new battle as theorised by the creator's original research. This battle honor is not recognized as such by the Kriegsmarine. His creations have the prefix "Action of" and a suffix of the date in British English format, to emulate the manner/format in which certain battle honors of the Royal Navy were recorded from 1847 onwards. Keith H99 (talk) 16:19, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Keith H99 (talk) 16:19, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Keith H99 (talk) 16:19, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 January 12. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:43, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:24, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:24, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:24, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:24, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages, for the same reasons. These articles contain lots of maybes and probablys. They have a reading list at the foot of the page. They do not have inline citations. These engagements are lacking in significance.

Action of 13 May 1944 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Action of 10 November 1944 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Action of 5 July 1942 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Any sourced content should be recorded within the articles for U-1224, USS Flounder & USS Growler. Keith H99 (talk) 19:12, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages, for the same reasons. These articles contain lots of maybes and probablys. They have a reading list at the foot of the page. They do not have inline citations. These engagements are lacking in significance.

Action of 6 October 1944 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Action of 23 April 1945 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Any sourced content should be recorded within the articles for U-168 & USS Besugo. Penultimate addition. Keith H99 (talk) 19:25, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Above items now listed in separate nomination, as requested.

Articles for deletion/Action of 23 April 1945

Thanks Keith H99 (talk) 22:06, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages, for the same reasons.

Action of 12 October 1950 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

What is particularly interesting is that the talk page acknowledges that there is no scholarly source for this engagement.
Talk:Action of 12 October 1950
I deduce it lacks significance. Final edit Keith H99 (talk) 19:42, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Sinking of SS Clan Mactavish. This is a reasonable article: I expect there are Reliable sources, even if not cited in-line. Commerce raiding during WWI was severe enough to worry the British government, so that merging this inot a list article might be appropriate. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:07, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see the sinking of the vessel is recorded in a chronological list as the eighth of fifteen ships sunk or captured on the first raiding voyage of SMS Möwe. Keith H99 (talk) 01:01, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• • Please make the others into a separate nomination for WWII. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:15, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect The 1950 case is covered in Operation Wonsan and can be redirected there. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:15, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The last part of the article is about USS Pirate. I have cut this, and pasted it into the USS Pirate article.

One of the few citations in the article, which references the loss of two minesweepers, has been added to the Operation Wonsan article, as it was lacking an inline citation for the loss of the two minesweepers.08:30, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus following separation of other articles.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 23:41, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into the SMS Möwe (1914) page for the ship. It adds flavour to the ship page and the citation link would be a useful thing there for further information if someone was interested. Gusfriend (talk) 09:46, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment -- perhasp the answer is to merge to this and other sinkings to SMS Möwe. The individual victims are perhaps NN.

Peterkingiron (talk) 19:04, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Can we get a separate Afd for the 12th October 1950 if that is deemed worthy of deletion. Gusfriend (talk) 10:07, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 01:50, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:49, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into the SMS Möwe (1914) page for the ship and create a different Afd for 12 October 1950.Gusfriend (talk) 07:00, 5 February 2022 (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.