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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:46, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

400 ton-class ammunition ship[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)

Source 1 fails WP:RS. I do not think source 2 talks about the article subject, so its relationship with the Type 905 seems to be WP:OR.

I cannot find such a class in Janes 2004 or 2015. In those Y834 is Qiongsha class. - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 07:55, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 07:55, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Transportation. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:04, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete GNG fail, and it's unclear if the article even accurately describes its supposed subject. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:37, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete GNG fail and WP:OR per "no official information has been released, despite the ships have already been in service around a decade" Where is this information coming from then? Is it all speculation? Llammakey (talk) 20:19, 16 December 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.