Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Japanese submarine Yu 23


 * 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 no consensus. Limited participation and no consensus after two relists. I'm actually not even sure why this was listed at AfD in the first place, since deletion was not requested in the nomination and there is no history at either the nominated article or the suggested redirect target to indicate that a merge or redirect was attempted or discussed previously. RL0919 (talk) 14:48, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Japanese submarine Yu 23

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Given that as the article notes, there is essentially nothing that can be individually said about this vessel apart from the class description, there is no reason to have a separate article on this subject. Redirect to Type 3 submergence transport vehicle, as almost the entire article is about that class rather than this ship, and the brief mention in a list there suffices for coverage of this vessel. Hog Farm Talk 04:10, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * OPPOSE: The article does in fact summarize what is known about the submarine specifically, both in terms of what is known about her construction and career, in ways not quite covered in the class article. It at a minimum creates a stub/baseline for future research to build upon (something Wikipedia otherwise encourages as broad philosophy of the site), and it pushes forward (what should be) Wikipedia's goal of creating new and better information content for the general public. Including some class design information in ship-specific articles is a common practice on Wikipedia and not aberrant here. If the amount of detail on the class offends for some reason, then reduce or eliminate it without deleting the article. I find it hard to understand how deleting the article would improve Wikipedia's coverage of either the specific submarine or of the class as a whole. If coverage of this specific submarine cannot begin with this article, then how could it begin at all? Mdnavman (talk) 12:38, 2 June 2022 (UTC)mdnavman
 * If coverage of this specific submarine cannot begin with this article, then how could it begin at all? - by covering it within the main class article. See something like Squib-class torpedo boat for another vessel about which not much can be said besides the shared class design.  Since there's many more of this class of submarines than of the Squib-class vessels, it would probably be better to have a table of the various submarines within the class article.  The class article should have a summary of characteristics/description much like is in the submarine article right now; the table of submarines could then include launch date/notes/fate etc. for the individual vessels.  Considering that the most that can be said about the individual career of this vessel is a couple dates and "we don't know what it did", there's not a good reason for the coverage of this vessel to be in a separate page since 95% should be in the class article anyway.  If someone ever does find out something useful about the individual ship's history, a separate article could of course be created. The best way to cover a topic isn't always a stand-alone page. Hog Farm Talk 03:54, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:31, 9 June 2022 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  12:34, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Japan. Hog Farm Talk 04:10, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Weak keep In general, a commissioned submarine should easily meet the requirements of GNG. In some cases, and this one appears to be such an article, almost everything that is known about the individual submarine can be easily accommodated in a detailed class article. That doesn't mean that additional sources about unique aspects of this boat might surface... So I'm happy with it existing separately for now. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:43, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Merge to Type 3 submergence transport vehicle. It appears that the records that would allow WP:SIGCOV to be written about this transport do not exist - the limited information that is available would be suitable for a table in an existing article. BilledMammal (talk) 07:02, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 *  This AfD discussion has been proposed for merger to Type 3 submergence transport vehicle,,, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , and a notice of the proposed merger was posted to on June 22. As such, this AfD discussion may need to be extended or relisted to incorporate input from.


 * 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.