Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Japanese minelayer Itsukushima


 * 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  Speedy keep (non-admin closure). I think WP:SNOW is applicable here. Ruslik (talk) 18:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Japanese minelayer Itsukushima

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Little content. There are 5 tags on it, and I don't really sense any notability. Pretty much per WP:CSD, I could probably speedy it but I'd rather bring it here. &mdash; Ceran  thor  [Formerly] LordSunday] 19:00, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * for God's sake i have only started to work on this article today, obviously i'll expand it in the following days.Loosmark (talk) 19:53, 5 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions.   -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 21:35, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.   -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 21:36, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep as it was just barely created. There's no WP:TIMELINE on Wikipedia, and it shows an amazing lack of WP:AGF to nominate it for deletion so soon after creation without attempting to work with the creator first. Additionally, notability is claimed in the article as the ship is apparently the first diesel-only warship in the Imperial Japanese Navy. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjoe 22:04, 5 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep Give the creator some time to work on it. --Woland (talk) 22:22, 5 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. While this certainly needs improvement and expansion (it was me that tagged it with a number of maintenance templates), deletion is not a fair option just yet. For the record, speedy deletion is not applicable here, as notability is at least asserted. --DAJF (talk) 00:12, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment: I think I found the Japanese article: 厳島 (敷設艦). Some of the numbers don't quite match up, but it says it was a minelayer. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjoe 02:38, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep: Commissioned naval ships are considered inherently notable. Benea (talk) 10:17, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Per Benea.  H aus Talk 10:42, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Article improvements have been made since it was tagged for deletion. Shinerunner (talk) 11:15, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Suggest Speedy Keep per Benea, Shinerunner, and WP:SNOW. Parsecboy (talk) 11:29, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Aside from all sources, any edition of Jane's Fighting Ships from the period would provide tons of coverage on this ship. Nyttend (talk) 14:32, 6 October 2008 (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.