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. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 20:15, 21 July 2017 (UTC) reply

Mitsubishi Air Lubrication System

Mitsubishi Air Lubrication System (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

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

Is this really notable? Most of the sources are first-party and not independent - and it's hard to justify this page existing when a more general page on air lubrication technologies hasn't yet been created. RSTBlue ( talk) 14:12, 14 July 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 17:10, 14 July 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 17:10, 14 July 2017 (UTC) reply

• I think the main article you're looking for might be Supercavitation (which doesn't currently mention the Mitsubishi system). Perhaps a merge, if found to be not independently notable. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 17:13, 14 July 2017 (UTC) reply
• I should point out that the nominator's primary activity here has been a series of unsuccessful attempts to create an article on a similar product, Silverstream System. However, the Mitsubishi system gets decidedly better Gnews results. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 17:19, 14 July 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep Seems notable, there are plenty of hits in the kind of press I'd expect to cover such a technology ( [1]), and the original creator of the Mitsubishi article seems to be independent and have no COI (just an interest in some random marine technologies). However, I am concerned that this AfD has a COI issue, per Shawn in Montreal. - GretLomborg ( talk) 19:50, 14 July 2017 (UTC) reply
• I see there's also a third system, the ACES air-lubricated hull design (an acronym of ‘Air Chamber Energy Saving’). now apparently patented by Damen Group and something called Marinvention? A wiki search for air hull lubrication here yields a number of articles on individual ships - often ice breakers - that use this interesting technology. I'd have no objection personally to repurposing this as a main article called Air-lubricated hull or somesuch that discusses the technology generically, mentioning all the proprietary systems, the history, uses in open water and ice, etc. Or it could start as a modest section in Hull (watercraft), which currently doesn't mention this new technology. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 20:54, 14 July 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep Some hits on this. Deathlibrarian ( talk) 10:04, 15 July 2017 (UTC) reply
• Yes, here's a neutral assessment from an industry blog, covering the claimed benefits and possible drawbacks. And here, a story on the first such Mitsubishi equipped cruise ship. Air lubrication as an emerging technology for ships may well need a main article, but until such time, we should at least keep this one. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 13:21, 15 July 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep While the article doesn't say much right now, with most of the notability conferred from ELs per Shawn's analysis, I do think that notability has been established from those links. The logical step is to now use those to expand the article with the analysis and descriptions contained therein. I would think we can also get a decent article about the tech in general by using those same sources (Ironic if an AfD netted +1 articles at its conclusion?). Crow ^Caw 21:15, 15 July 2017 (UTC) reply

I've entered a request for such a general article at AFC, fwiw. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 12:02, 16 July 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep there are sources out there, as well as a valid concern about the legitimacy of this nomination. Lepricavark ( talk) 03:49, 16 July 2017 (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.