Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Landship


 * 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 keep, basically as a broad concept page indexing large land vehicles to which the term has been applied. Further discussion about the exact contents appropriate for the page can be carried out on the article talk page. BD2412 T 17:01, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Landship

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The entire article appears to be original research. The lone source does not use the term "landship", and there is no indication that it's a commonly used term for a "large vehicle that travels on land". A Google Books search indicates that the primary topic for the term is actually Landship (Barbados), with some sources also discussing tanks in the context of the Landship Committee. There also doesn't seem to be a different common name for such "large vehicles" that the page could be moved to; the alternative name "landcraft" given in the article seems to see even less use. Beyond the title issue, the content is a hodgepodge of unrelated information about different kinds of vehicles that appear to satisfy various editors' ideas of "large land vehicles". Unsalvageable. Even if "large land vehices" were a suitable topic for a Wikipedia article under some title, it would be easier to start over from scratch than to try and rewrite this page. Huon (talk) 00:16, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Huon (talk) 00:16, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: question on the refdesk
 * Note: Editors here may also be interested in Categories for discussion/Log/2019 December 19, a closely related discussion.

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Additional time may yield a consensus solution, which may include renaming or adjusting the scope.
 * Delete For the reasons laid out above. The article appears to be an effort to force-fit discussion of various large mobile structures into a term that is not part of the English idiom. HopsonRoad (talk) 03:57, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose I have largely revamped the entire page to make it more relevant in a historical context and influence in fictional work. Still a work in progress, but I have made it less of an 'original research'. I have pretty much wrote down the evolution of the Landship concept, and why these concepts failed and why its euphemism for large military war machine/superweapon faded at the end of the Second World War. I also wrote down how the failed landship project eventually influence and gave rise to modern armored fighting vehicles such as the tank.42Grunt (talk) 06:38, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep: an interesting article that has a lot of room for improvement.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:38, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep The objections seem to be about the name, more than the content. Although both "landship" and also "land leviathan" (and "leviathan" was regularly applied to ships) have a long pedigree from 1900–1918 in both fiction and military thought. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:34, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - The article has been edited heavily since I nominated it, but the basic problems remain. Those of the new sources I checked either refer to tanks or do not mention the term "landship". There is no source provided that discusses the general concept of "a large vehicle that travels exclusively on land", a concept that is ill-defined (what's "large"?) and not shown to be independently notable. While it may be possible to establish notability of "large land vehicle" as an article topic, this article would still be original research, particularly original synthesis, top to bottom. It currently violates one of our core content policies, and none of the "keep" opinions addresses this problem or shows that it could be cured short of scrapping the entire page, despite the recent rewrite, and starting over from scratch. "WP:ITSINTERESTING" is an argument that should be given no weight. For bonus points, spot the blatant error of fact right in the lead. Huon (talk) 18:59, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - The lead sentence ( my emphasis ), "Because of their large size, their use on land is seen as impractical due to terrain obstacles, and soft ground that cannot support such large weight. Such problems are non-existent on water and in space", highlights why they don't exist and why there's no corresponding term. Large-scale mining machinery is introduced, elsewhere, but could become an expanded article. Such machinery is designed for a very limited range of action and wouldn't be considered to be a "ship"—capable of roaming long distances. HopsonRoad (talk) 21:50, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Not one mention of Simon Stevin in the article? There are some encyclopedic topics associated with "Landship": Prairie schooner and British tanks (Merriam-Webster), and marginally related that Wikipedia may or may not have content for: Land sailing,, The Land Ironclads. Is a DAB at this title most appropriate? WP:DABRELATED says not to do that.&mdash;eric 04:15, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Tanks in the British Army for now. The source that sets the widest scope for a "Landship" article i've found so far is, and i don't think that is enough to take the topic beyond "History of the Tank". The concept behind H.M. Landship Centipede and navy involvement obviously came for somewhere tho, and even survived past the war in some way. I wouldn't be surprised at all if something is found that could widen the scope and justify a standalone article.&mdash;eric 16:10, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete or Redirect as described by EricR above. AFACT, the only meaning of landship is as here, which was an historical name for tanks, but everything else in the article is basically WP:SYNTH and otherwise made up.  -- Jayron 32 17:05, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Redirect as per above. The Churchill-era early days of tank development are AFAIK the only topic where that term is actually used, and it should redirect there. This article is an interesting production, but unfortunately the fundamental WP:SYNTH structure makes it unsuitable for the encyclopedia. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:12, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep - If you don't like the name, just change it. Deleting an entire article that is filled with sources and encyclopedic information solely because the name is not good is not appropriate. Michepman (talk) 03:57, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * It's the name and the topic combined. We should be able to write a short introductory section that is verifiable and together with the title would set the scope of an article. What there is so far would exclude almost all the current article's content.&mdash;eric 16:39, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - At Talk:Landship the suggestion has been made by the nominator to "move Landship (Barbados) to this title and add a hatnote along the lines of "For early tank development see Landship Committee and British heavy tanks of World War I." All the tank-related information should have a place in one or another of those articles." The editor notes, "As an aside, the Barbados Landship originated in the 1800s and predates the use of the term for tanks by quite a bit." I endorse this move. HopsonRoad (talk) 18:20, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BD2412  T 05:05, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Move proposal
User:Huon, User:42Grunt, User:Jack Upland, User:Andy Dingley, User:Jayron32, User:EricR, User:Elmidae, User:Michepman I'm looking for your concurrence with the idea to: This should avoid the WP:SYNTH problem that currently exists.
 * 1) Move any cited element of this article covering a topic, such as tanks or excavators to the relevant article (assuming that the information isn't already covered there).
 * 2) Move Landship (Barbados) to this title.
 * 3) Add a hatnote to the top material: "For early tank development see Landship Committee and British heavy tanks of World War I."

Sincerely, HopsonRoad (talk) 15:03, 27 December 2019 (UTC)


 * I no longer support my own proposal because the social group is properly called, "Barbados Landship", as described in my comment, below. HopsonRoad (talk) 04:09, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Please post your support/non-support of the Move proposal below here:

 * I'm on board with the splitting-up of various vehicle-related bits to the respective articles. I hadn't heard of the Barbados Landship before, whereas I had heard of the early tank thing; and I suspect that it may turn out not to be the primary meaning, if one were to run the numbers. So I'm not sure about the proposed move. But both being fairly arcane topics, I don't feel too strongly about that. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 22:35, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note an earlier comment, "..., the Barbados Landship originated in the 1800s and predates the use of the term for tanks by quite a bit". Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 15:06, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Older != primary topic, or not necessarily; otherwise computer would land you at people who twiddle abaci. But as I said, not much concerned about that part. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 00:51, 29 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Support I'm an outside editor to this point that just read through this entire discussion, and this proposal seems to be a good conclusion to this rather lengthy AFD. Even if the landship committee was the more notable topic, it wouldn't really make sense to move an article titled "landship committee" to just "landship." Sam-2727 (talk) 00:48, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Further discussion of the delete Landship proposal below here:

 * Maybe a WP:DAB?
 * Landship Committee
 * Barbados Landship
 * Sea Scout landships
 * Prairie schooner (??? dubious Merriam-Webster entry)
 * &mdash;eric 21:01, 28 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment I see that the Barbados Landship appears as "Barbados Landship" on its Facebook page and that's how it is styled in news reports, e.g. "Independence Parade Showcases Barbadian Culture" and "First 'Site of Memory' unveiled - The Landship" (see text). Therefore the Landship (Barbados) article should be renamed Barbados Landship, as its lead suggests, and not assume this name. HopsonRoad (talk) 01:16, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * See discussion at Talk:Landship (Barbados). Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 15:39, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Therefore, the eric WP:DAB alternative works for me. HopsonRoad (talk) 15:53, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * "Landship (Barbados)" is now Barbados Landship. HopsonRoad (talk) 14:36, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I've completely lost the overview of who proposes what here, but the above DAB approach works for me too. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 23:55, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation Proposal

 * Comment and Keep - I have turned the page into a disambiguation page instead of making it a redirect to Landship (Barbados), as there are multiple vehicles and concepts either used the term landship or paraphrased as such. There is also the fact that the world of fiction has several examples in which the entire setting is dominated by landships.42Grunt (talk) 06:20, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Provisional keep – The redirect idea only works for those entries that have actually been called a "landship" in their supporting reliable sources. Without that the remaining entries are WP:SYNTHESIS. I see no evidence for any but the few, mentioned, above to remain. HopsonRoad (talk) 14:45, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The only things that I can see disambiguation to are: British heavy tanks of World War I—initially called "landships", the Landship Committee—the British naval committee that initiated the study of tanks ("landships" at the time) and became known as the "Tank Supply Committee", and the Barbados Landship—the Barbadan cultural society. HopsonRoad (talk) 20:30, 2 January 2020 (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.