Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Japanese aircraft carrier Project Number G18


 * 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. j⚛e deckertalk 19:16, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Japanese aircraft carrier Project Number G18

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No evidence this projected design ever existed, google searches turn up nothing more than the echo chamber of forum postings (some of which reference this page as prompting the discussions) and an online video game that probably originated the topic. Parsecboy (talk) 18:00, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:22, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:22, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:22, 16 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Support deletion no evidence of existence in PRS. Irondome (talk) 18:38, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support deletion for a non-notable concept. Tupsumato (talk) 19:32, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete Article massively fails NRV. I am unable to find anything at all on this topic and have serious doubts the subject existed. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:30, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 *  Delete  Doing some further digging...while this article only existed since January, the G18 as the 'successor project' was added to the Unryu-class article in this edit in February 2011. I'm not willing to call this a hoax, but I am willing to say it's unconfirmable. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:31, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Given the date of the above addition to the Unryu-class article, vis-a-vis the dates for World of Warships, I don't think the ship came from the game. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:34, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Parsecboy (talk) 15:23, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Merge to JAPANESE CRUISER Ibuki per discussion below. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:34, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete per The Bushranger. →Davey 2010→  →Talk to me!→  01:09, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete: A google search for "G18 空母" generally gives blog and forum posts, with nothing useful. An article on the Japanese Wikipedia exists at ja:G18 (空母), however I cannot verify the references. -- benlisquare T•C•E 07:07, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep: the Japanese Wikipedia didn't delete this, and there should be records of this somewhere, maybe not on the internet.  ミーラー強斗武   (talk) 07:44, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The fact an article was not deleted on another Wikipedia is irrelevant to whether or not it should be kept in this one. That said, the sources in the Japanese article may be helpful here. According to Google Translate, the Romanisations are Fújǐng jìngfū zhùzuò jí dì qī juàn `rìběn kōngmǔ wùyǔ'(guāng rén shè,1996 nián 8 yuè) and Qiān téng sānqiān zào `zào jiàn jìshùno quánmào'p.130(Xìng yáng shè,1952 nián 7 yuè) - The Bushranger One ping only 07:48, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Google Translate lied and told you it was Chinese...  ミーラー強斗武   (talk) 07:54, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Remind me to always double-check. Japanese: Fukui shizuo chosaku-shū dainanakan `Nihon kūbo monogatari'(-kō hito-sha, 1996-nen 8 tsuki) and 千藤三千造 `Zōkan gijutsu no zenbō' p. 130 (Kōyō-sha, 1952-nen 7 tsuki),, which translate to "Japanese Aircraft Carrier Story, Volume 7", August 1996, and "The whole picture of [Zokan?] Tehcnology", July 1952. - The Bushranger One ping only 08:00, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Better, now to just get our hands on these and see what they say.  ミーラー強斗武   (talk) 08:03, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment do we have an article which holds a collection of unfulfilled Japanese military projects terminated by the end of the war? A summary of them all in one article would be notable, in my opinion, and if it exists then I would propose a merge. S.G.(GH) ping! 09:52, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * A collection of unrelated projects in one article? If it's an overview article, or a list article, that's fine, if it's supposed to be the full article, I think that falls under undesirable types of articles. We're not a paper encyclopedia, everything doesn't need to be on one page. In any case, many of the German military projects unfulfilled by war's end already have individual articles, so it is not inconceivable that the other major combatants of WWII would be similarly covered. Though considering the extreme stubbiness, a merge and the later re-split might be appropriate for the extreme stubs. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 12:01, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * They're not unheard of - see French battlecruiser proposals or German FK cruiser designs for a couple examples that merge several related proposals that could not individually sustain articles. Parsecboy (talk) 15:23, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete - Not because it is WP:OR but because it is a stub with no room for development. While the best source material is this book I am not inclined to order it just to rescue this article, because all it's going to say is it was originally a projected heavy cruiser design that was to be converted into an escort carrier along the lines of the Akagi which would still make it a stub. Jun Kayama 16:24, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * ...given that it was, if I recall, supposed to be based on Ibuki, perhaps a merge/redirect to JAPANESE CRUISER Ibuki might be feasible? - The Bushranger One ping only 02:21, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * That's a great idea. Maybe a few additional points in Ibuki mainspace to reinforce the merge/redirect would be the neatest solution. Irondome (talk) 02:28, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment - Bushranger, which Japanese source would you use to edit the Ibuki article? Jun Kayama 20:19, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * As I don't have the sources or the ability to read Japanese, I don't know. However I do know that it appears we can verify (assuming good faith on the sources in the Japanese wiki article) that the project existed, however it does not even come close to having sufficent notability for a standalone article. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:34, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It is a non-starter as a standalone article, but it could still be utilised as a few words in Ibuki mainspace, at least mentioning the project. That would save project no G18 from complete oblivion. Perhaps we know of a Japanese Wikipedian naval specialist. This all would obviously be based on the reliability of the Japanese sources. I think that's what Jun had in mind? Irondome (talk) 20:45, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Given that Sturmvogel 66 wrote both of the Ibuki articles, it would be worthwhile to get his opinion on the issue. Parsecboy (talk) 20:40, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

The best English-language sources on the Japanese cruiser and carrier construction programs, Lacroix, & Wells's Japanese Cruisers of the Pacific War and Lengerer's article "Katsuragi and the Failure of Mass Production of Medium Sized Aircraft Carriers" make no mention of any conversion of heavy cruisers into carriers other than the Ibukis. They were the only two heavy cruisers ordered under the Circle Urgent construction program of 1941 and no others were projected through 1948. One Ibuki was converted into a carrier and the other was broken up a month after construction began under the post-Midway construction program as the IJN scrambled to replace its losses. Lengerer does mention that the IJN anticipated building modified Taiho- and Unryu-class carriers after the first batch was completed, but provides no details nor even a design #. He does say that the Unryu's were coded as G15, but I'm not sure how these design codes were allocated so I don't know if the G prefix was for purpose-built carriers or not. So I think that the above information about a conversion from a heavy cruiser design is incorrect unless that was the design # for the Ibuki conversions. Barring further information, I see no reason to keep this article; if further info is translated that clarifies the situation we can decide how to handle it then.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:39, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It sounds like the Unryu conversions were the events we have sources for, and the 2 Ibuki's were seperate and minor schemes. I think they have been conflated. Many IJN archives were destroyed IIRC. IMHO I think we should wait say a month for any futher info to surface if any, and if  still zilch at the end of june, delete. Irondome (talk) 22:58, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The Unryus weren't conversions at all; they were purpose-built.
 * Major Unryus slap in order then. Temporarily lost it and I blame the Japanese language :)Bottom line if there is no evidence that this was a designated project, delete. Wait a few weeks maybe. Cheers Irondome (talk) 23:33, 18 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 17:23, 29 May 2014 (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.