Forum:TC:Confederate Second Fleet

Forums > Trash compactor archive > TC:Confederate Second Fleet

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 delete. Graestan(Talk) 03:39, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Confederate Second Fleet (talk - history - links - logs)

Just read the article. The fleet's existence is conjectural. -- Ozzel 03:48, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

  • I can understand why you would want to delete this but this is 99% guaranteed to be true. There wouldn't be a first and third, but no second fleet.Dr.Kermit 03:58, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Delete

  1. Ozzel 03:48, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
  2. The United States has a second through seventh but doesn't have a first fleet and the fourth is currently re-forming after 58 years of nonexistence. In WWII we had an eighth and twelfth fleet but no ninth or eleventh and the tenth had no ships. During the Cold War, the Soviets would drive in circles during May Day parades to make their army look bigger. Some taxi cab companies assign car numbers randomly. In short, that 99% guarantee is... optimistic. -- Darth Culator (Talk) 04:55, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
  3. Per the overwhelming consensus here and administrative decision here, as well as common sense, conjectural articles based solely on the existence of something else are a big no-no, so a TC isn't even necessary. 99% guaranteed doesn't cut it; only 100% canon does. -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 11:58, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
  4. I was actually going to point out the lack of a USN First Fleet as an example but Culator beat me to it. Total conjecture = fanon. Bahleet! Wildyoda 04:02, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
  5. Good god, a conjectural article based on the supposition that such a fleet exists, yet there is not even real-world precedence for such an event? SHOCKING. JorrelWiki-shrinkableFraajic 19:16, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
  6. Per them and precedent and stuff. - Lord Hydronium 19:33, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
  7. Per above. Green Tentacle (Talk) 17:57, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
  8. Per above. See also Forum:TC:CT-8771 through CT-8909 for another example of a decision to delete a bunch of numerically-based conjectural articles, even though the specific issues cited in that CT don't directly apply here. jSarek 09:10, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
  9. If we don't even know if it exists, then there should not be article about. --Jedimca0(Do or Do Not, There is No Try) 13:07, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
  10. -- I need a name (Complain here) 13:08, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
  11. "Conjecture based on." Funny. Toprawa and Ralltiir 19:37, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
  12. Per everyone. Unit 8311 15:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
  13. CSD case. Graestan(Talk) 19:54, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
  14. Yay! Let's all just assume that fleets exist with no canonical basis! Ifindyourlackoffaithdisturbing (Oya Manda!) 19:57, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
  15. Per jSarek. And everyone. -LtNOWIS 02:17, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Keep

  1. Dr.Kermit 03:58, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
  2. Eh, I've seen worse articles around. -- SFH 05:32, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
  3. Kaleep! KEJ 12:51, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments