Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Faulknor-class flotilla leader

Faulknor-class flotilla leader

Faulknor-class flotilla leader (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)

I propose merging to Almirante Lynch-class destroyer because the pages seem to heavily WP:OVERLAP with each other, as seen in their two ledes. FaviFake (talk) 20:38, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Transportation, United Kingdom, and Chile. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:00, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

• Keep Beyond the leads, the content differs in the Design section and in the Service History. It's not unusual for there to be some overlap in articles about warship classes, especially when they have been operated by different navies at different times with a common design but different configurations. Based on the content of both articles, if we were going to merge, I would suggest that Almirante Lynch-class destroyer is instead merged into this article, as the Faulknor-class appears more notable due to its wartime service with Royal Navy.

Dfadden (talk) 20:30, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. To be clear, you're still !voting to keep and have a reverse merge as your second option? FaviFake (talk) 23:01, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Yes, that is correct. Dfadden (talk) 23:59, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

• Keep/Redirect - It's cool to keep and probably redirected. So8LLingT (talk) 03:25, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

  You can't keep an article and redirect it at the same time... FaviFake (talk) 10:25, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 01:27, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

• Merge per Dfadden above. They might have been originally constructed as Almirante Lynch-class destroyers, but the bulk of the class appears to be more notable for their service with the Royal Navy (since 4 of the total 6 served there). Perhaps a redirect could be used to aid users searching for the original class name. Intothatdarkness 12:44, 12 June 2026 (UTC)
• I came here following a link to a merge proposal; it now seems to be a deletion discussion.

For the record I am opposed to deletion, and I am also opposed to a merger. There is no lack of reliable sources for this page, (they could do with tidying up, but if you are fixing to delete the page that feels like that would be a waste of effort) and has significant coverage in them; as a class of warships that served in the First World War they surely don’t lack notability.

As for merging this with the Almirante Lynch page, why? If there is an overlap in the lead section that can be rectified easily enough by moving some details (not a lot, so far as I can see); the Almirante Lynch page should be focussed on the Chilean aspect of the vships and this page on the British, and it doesn’t require a merge to fix that. Also the Faulknors underwent various changes in British hands, so their design, construction and general characteristics were different, as were their service histories. It isn’t unusual to have two class articles where the same ships served in different navies (see Evarts/Buckley classes and in RN service Captains class; the Clemson/Wickes classes and the Towns; and the Action/Temptress classes and the Flowers).

These pages already work as stand-alone but cross-linked articles, and putting them on the same page won’t help readers who are looking at ships of a particular nation, or with categorization by navy; the result would definitely be "clunky". Xyl 54 (talk) 11:10, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

I came here following a link to a merge proposal; it now seems to be a deletion discussion.
@Xyl 54 Nope, this is not a deletion discussion. It's indeed a merge proposal. FaviFake (talk) 22:40, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

@FaviFake: Fair enough: though it’s an easy mistake to make, considering the title says WP:Articles for Deletion, not #Proposed Merge. As a matter of interest, what are the options here? Is it just Merge/NotMerge, or does it include Delete/Keep? If it’s the former, why are we here? And if the latter, it isn’t just a merge discussion at all, is it? Anyway, I’ve taken issue with this innovation here, if you are interested. Xyl 54 (talk) 12:23, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

@Xyl 54 The answer is that we're here because there was consensus to merge PAM into AfD. You can try to reverse it, but i doubt it'll work. FaviFake (talk) 12:50, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 20:20, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

• Support merge as proposed; I doubt there is enough material differences between the two groups to warrant separate articles, and they weren't in RN service long enough to have received significant upgrades to their original equipment. Generally speaking, when we have classes of mixed nationality, we go by the original owner/builder/etc. Thus we have Almirante Latorre-class battleship, Vifor-class destroyer, Reşadiye-class battleship, Giuseppe Garibaldi-class cruiser, etc. The notability of the period of service is less relevant for the class article than it is for articles on the individual ships (so it would make much more sense to keep the articles at HMS Faulknor (1914) than to move it to ARA Almirante Riveros. Dfadden's proposal would be plainly incorrect, since only 4 of the 6 could be described as "Faulknor-class flotilla leaders". Parsecboy (talk) 14:38, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

  To clarify, my !vote was and remains to keep both articles. Dfadden (talk) 20:43, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Comment: Another complication is that, although the proposed merge is in the right direction (per Parsecboy), the Faulknor's page is better referenced, and has more scope for expansion. Also, Conway and Janes both treat the Almirante Williams ships as a separate class, due to the modifications while in British hands. Just a thought... Xyl 54 (talk) 12:34, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

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.