- 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. As Andy Dingley pointed out, no one has presented an argument that the subject of this article is not notable. The crux of the matter is whether the article's content itself, as it currently stands, is duplicative of, or would be better off in the context of the Yokosuka E5Y article. I see editors stating we should merge and others stating we should keep and expand -- but this is an editorial discussion that does not relate to deletion. I would encourage participants to continue the merge discussion on the appropriate talk pages per WP:MERGEPROP. ( non-admin closure) Mz7 ( talk) 02:55, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
- Kawanishi E5K ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The article is inaccurate and very incomplete, apart from the fact that the Kawanishi aircraft were merely variants of the Yokosuka originalsand the Yokosuka E5Y articles covers the subject more accurately and more completely Petebutt ( talk) 16:20, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 06:59, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 06:59, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
- Keep the article uses a reliable source and the type was in service with the Imperial Japanese Navy so is notable enough for an article. It may be that the types are related but that should be a talk page or project discussion not a deletion. MilborneOne ( talk) 18:01, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
- Keep Article is sourced to a reliable ref, no valid reason given for deletion. If the two articles overlap then this should be described or even merged and redirected, but not deleted. - Ahunt ( talk) 19:50, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
- Merge and redirect to Yokosuka E5Y, per Petebutt. This is a notable aircraft, no one is disputing that. It's interesting locally, as they illustrate the period of Japanese re-arming when they were building airframes but buying engines from Bristol. However we would give our readers a better article and better coverage if we kept coverage of this as a variant within one overall article. From what I can find, this was a licence-building exercise to the same design, had the same navy designation as Type 90-3 and had no significant differences recorded. Andy Dingley ( talk) 15:16, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 Talk 14:46, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 20:11, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
- Merge to Yokosuka E5Y. Much of this short article is already covered in target article, and I agree with Andy Dingley that readers are better served by having the topics covered in one place. -- Hobbes Goodyear ( talk) 15:45, 1 August 2015 (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.
- 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. As Andy Dingley pointed out, no one has presented an argument that the subject of this article is not notable. The crux of the matter is whether the article's content itself, as it currently stands, is duplicative of, or would be better off in the context of the Yokosuka E5Y article. I see editors stating we should merge and others stating we should keep and expand -- but this is an editorial discussion that does not relate to deletion. I would encourage participants to continue the merge discussion on the appropriate talk pages per WP:MERGEPROP. ( non-admin closure) Mz7 ( talk) 02:55, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
- Kawanishi E5K ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The article is inaccurate and very incomplete, apart from the fact that the Kawanishi aircraft were merely variants of the Yokosuka originalsand the Yokosuka E5Y articles covers the subject more accurately and more completely Petebutt ( talk) 16:20, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 06:59, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 06:59, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
- Keep the article uses a reliable source and the type was in service with the Imperial Japanese Navy so is notable enough for an article. It may be that the types are related but that should be a talk page or project discussion not a deletion. MilborneOne ( talk) 18:01, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
- Keep Article is sourced to a reliable ref, no valid reason given for deletion. If the two articles overlap then this should be described or even merged and redirected, but not deleted. - Ahunt ( talk) 19:50, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
- Merge and redirect to Yokosuka E5Y, per Petebutt. This is a notable aircraft, no one is disputing that. It's interesting locally, as they illustrate the period of Japanese re-arming when they were building airframes but buying engines from Bristol. However we would give our readers a better article and better coverage if we kept coverage of this as a variant within one overall article. From what I can find, this was a licence-building exercise to the same design, had the same navy designation as Type 90-3 and had no significant differences recorded. Andy Dingley ( talk) 15:16, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 Talk 14:46, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 20:11, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
- Merge to Yokosuka E5Y. Much of this short article is already covered in target article, and I agree with Andy Dingley that readers are better served by having the topics covered in one place. -- Hobbes Goodyear ( talk) 15:45, 1 August 2015 (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.