Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Japanese minelayer Okinoshima


 * 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). Snowball closure. Ruslik (talk) 19:07, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Japanese minelayer Okinoshima

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

Same reason as below nomination. See this. &mdash; Ceran  thor  [Formerly LordSunday] 19:04, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * same answer as before i have only started to work on this. i'm new and it took me some time to do the infobox. Okinoshima was a large warship by any standard (over 4500 tons full load, the size of a cruiser). since i see that wikipedia has tons of articles about even little warships Okinoshima deserves an article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Loosmark (talk • contribs) 20:03, 5 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.   -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 21:33, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions.   -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 21:33, 5 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment: The cleanup tags had been put on the article less than 7 hours before, right after the article was created -- that's not exactly giving enough time to let them work. —Quasirandom (talk) 21:47, 5 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Give the creator some time to work on it.--Woland (talk) 22:21, 5 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. Article needed expansion and improvement as per cleanup tags I added (now removed) - but not AFD. --DAJF (talk) 00:20, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. I found the ja article. ja:沖島 (敷設艦). Oda Mari (talk) 14:15, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep As I noted on the other minelayer deletion page, any Jane's Fighting Ships edition from this time would provide tons of coverage — this ship is far past the minimum threshhold for notability. Nyttend (talk) 14:34, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep As stated on the other deletion page, commissioned warships are considered inherently notable. Benea (talk) 15:21, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Suggest Speedy keep per Benea et al. Parsecboy (talk) 16:01, 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.