Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Future boat developments


 * 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. T. Canens (talk) 18:53, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Future boat developments

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The future is subject to speculation and anticipation and can not possibly be described as an encyclopedical fact. Everything substantial in this article is from the present or rather the past, and by the article's title it is suggested that these past events and trends will be carried on into the future. Thus, 100% of this article is speculative and must be removed. Reasons for Deletion: (6) "Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources"; (14) "content not suitable for an encyclopedia". -- Theoprakt (talk) 06:02, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep There's a difference between wild speculation and informed predictive analysis. Looking for similar articles, I found List of proposed future transport; there is no shortage of material on future transport and it can be backed up by reliable sources, just as Wikipedia has a huge variety of other articles on future events from science fiction concepts to upcoming elections to cosmological and astronomical happenings to technology that isn't quite ready for the big time, everything from Room-temperature superconductor to 2020 Summer Olympics. There are discussions on the future of boat transport in reliable sources as well as those cited e.g. and it's legitimate to have an article about these. Colapeninsula (talk) 14:01, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep. This article has enough attribution to reliable sources for me to say keep. The very first one is a BBC article that quotes a maritime professor with a PhD in "engineering and public policy" . I'd consider that person pretty darn reliable for where the maritime industry is trending in the future. For the nominator's second reason, WP:NOTPAPER is enough for me to say keep. There is room in an electronic encyclopedia to keep this article. It would have been suitable for a paper "maritime" encyclopedia, so why not here. People tend to think in terms of Funk & Wagnalls or other home encyclopedias and forgetting the Not Paper guideline. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 17:09, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I do not question the relevance of innovative technology in this article, as far as it is sourced. What I do question is stringing it together in a random fashion and labeling it as "the future". Wikipedia is not a crystal ball: "Wikipedia does not predict the future"; "Articles that present original research in the form of extrapolation, speculation, and 'future history' are inappropriate". Such musings of what may be one day are certainly entertaining and inspiring, but they do have absolutely no place in an encyclopedia, paper or digital. -- Theoprakt (talk) 08:58, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete it's an WP:INDISCRIMINATE array of things that are already covered in other articles, it looks like some student's paper, and contains OR and speculations, with questionable (primary) sources. Kraxler (talk) 16:05, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &mdash;&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·E·C) 00:54, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per Kraxler. —Мандичка YO 😜 03:08, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE, I can't see how this can become anything more then hodgepodge of various unrelated predictions and speculations.--Staberinde (talk) 16:58, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep but as something like Future challenges in nautical design. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:53, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but WP is not a free host for little essays. I doubt that Future challenges in nautical design has any significant coverage in secondary sources. Kraxler (talk) 18:31, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ☮  JAaron95  Talk   18:22, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep It's a hard call as to whether keep the whole thing or split it up into the various extant and sourced technologies. A wholesale delete would be a poor decision. Propose moving to something with less emphasis on predictive/future, since the gist of the article seems to be on fuel consumption and "green" technology how about Green Propulsion Technology (Nautical) or the like. Im not overly familiar with how WikiProject Ships categorizes their articles.--Savonneux (talk) 05:24, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The "delete" !voters don't find fault with the title, they object to the content, citing the pertaining guidelines. Kraxler (talk) 14:01, 16 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete as WP:CRYSTALBALL. Stuartyeates (talk) 10:27, 19 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.