Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of ships damaged by kamikaze attack

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:32, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of ships damaged by kamikaze attack[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A List of ships sunk by kamikazes might satisfy WP:SALAT, but not a list of those that were just damaged. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:06, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Lists. Shellwood (talk) 07:43, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Don't see the value in this. Mztourist (talk) 07:53, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. All of the ships are blue linked; sourcing for the Kamikaze attacks appears adequate in those articles per a quick perusal. I see no reason why such a list, well documented and presumably complete over 75 years later, should be restricted to those ships lost to the attack modality only. In short, GNG met, encyclopedic topic, expansion capacity exists to FL status. Jclemens (talk) 08:04, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How is GNG satisfied? Are there lists like this one out there? Clarityfiend (talk) 19:53, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The subject of kamizake attacks on allied warships is covered non-trivially in multiple reliable sources independent of the subject. As usual, you won't find a book specifically matching Wikipedia naming conventions, but we can agree that the topic of ships hit by kamikaze attacks has been the subject of then-current news and later military strategy, I trust. Jclemens (talk) 02:42, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand. Agree, this could fill out into something GA. Right now, it's a valid topic and list. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:32, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand, by creating sortable table with additional columns for ship types, dates, locations, whether sunk/damaged, casualties. Bahudhara (talk) 00:32, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
speedy keep and a friendly trout to the nom —usernamekiran (talk) 04:43, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The reasoning above re: keeping seems solid enough (plenty of sourcing on kamikaze attacks, this isn't too massive, and it could easily be expanded). At the same time, the current name is not optimal. The current title refers to all kamikaze attacks, during any war, against any ship, yet the article starts with A number of Allied ships were damaged by kamikaze attacks during World War II.... Either 1) the inclusion criteria needs to be broadened, or 2) the article needs to be renamed to something along the lines of List of Allied ships damaged by kamikaze attack during World War II. I'd prefer #1, especially given that (I'd assume) the Venn diagram of the current article title and the current inclusion criteria is likely close to a circle, so throwing in the few exceptions is probably not going to explode the list. -Ljleppan (talk) 09:20, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This was the first and as far as I know only time in history this type of attack was done during warfare, and listing the ships that got hit by it, with a link to their articles showing the exact details, is something that should be in this encyclopedia. Dream Focus 02:34, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand into a proper table with dates and details. BD2412 T 03:45, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.