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 delete but open to verifiable rewrite/redirect where nessecary. - Mailer Diablo 09:07, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Battlecarrier (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

This is a non-notable neologism for a fictional type of ship: a combination of an aircraft carrier and a battleship. The article mentions the Ise class battleships, which had their rear turrets removed and replaced with a flight deck. However, no historians refer to them as "battlecarriers", and they were a desperate attempt to get more flight decks in the most expedient way possible after the IJN had most of their carriers destroyed, not an attempt to build a hybrid warship which could act as both a battleship and a carrier. The term "battlecarrier" may have been recently popularized by the Playstation 2 game Naval Ops: Warship Gunner, which includes fictional battlecarriers. Most Google hits on the word are fictional. The most critical point is that no reliable source uses the word "battlecarrier" to describe the Ises or any other hypothetical warship. If the article has no reliable sources to assert the existence and notability of the term, the article should be deleted. TomTheHand 18:22, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletions. -- -- pb30<talk> 18:48, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - agree with the nominator that there's just not enough in terms of reliable sources outside of a few games and fictional references for this to be notable at this time. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 20:24, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, we already have an article on the real ones and the fictional ones have no external notability per WP:FICT. --Dhartung | Talk 04:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 09:36, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Raze to the waterline and rebuild (that means keep, but rewrite from scratch). Battle carriers existed, but were nothing like the nonsensefiction described in the existing article. See this article from the Naval Historical Center. I will rewrite this article at Battle Carrier regardless of the result of this AfD. ➥the Epopt 00:05, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, the Midway class aircraft carriers, which were called CVB between their completion in 1945 and their redesignation in 1952, were the only ships to carry that designation. However, I don't think they need an additional article on top of the class article itself. Nevertheless, I agree with you that the USN's CVBs were completely different from the fictional "battlecarrier" described in the article. TomTheHand 03:29, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 03:37, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, or redirect to Midway class aircraft carrier, per TomTheHand. The Land 15:30, 16 June 2007 (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.