Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aerial battleship

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 delete. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:36, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aerial battleship

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

PROD removed by IP without comment. Original concern stands: this is a term that is unknown in English sources; at best, it's a poor translation from the Japanese term for the ships being described; at worst, it's blatantly WP:MADEUP, and either way it's not notable. The correct English term for this type of ship is "hybrid warship", and while there may be an article that can be written on that subject, all this article is is a stub recounting of information from Ise-class battleship. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 15:21, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I believe there are fairly active and expert editors at the WP:ships project. What do they make of this article subject? Candleabracadabra (talk) 03:56, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- It's been tagged at the WP:SHIPS AfD page. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:35, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the title makes it sound like some sort of airship, and there's really no notability for the term at all. Nothing really worth merging anywhere, either. ₆an⁶sh₆ 05:40, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:22, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:22, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:22, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - this sounds like a bad translation, and while the topic of hybrid warships might be notable, this specific type isn't by itself. Parsecboy (talk) 19:18, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is not notable and even if it is somewhat, it isn't relevant to English Wikipedia. Plus the way this article is written I have concerns over it being plagiarized. FirstDrop87 (talk) 01:02, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The Japanese vessels existed; Gibbs and Cox did propose a battleship-carrier design for the USSR in the 1930s, but this term is incorrect and a either a neologism or poor translation, as suggest above. Kablammo (talk) 01:59, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it's a literal translation of a Japanese term, it's not the English language term. (it would probably be better translated as "Aviation Battleship" anyways, just as we have Aviation Cruisers, etc) As for the ship structure itself, some early aircraft carriers were build that way, with flight deck, bridge superstructure and turrets on the different thirds of the ships. -- 70.24.244.161 (talk) 05:57, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per nomination. At best a paragraph in the Battleship article but not under a literal translation of the Japanese.--Petebutt (talk) 08:40, 14 February 2014 (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.