Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Future of the French Navy


 * 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 - non-admin closure - Peripitus (Talk) 04:09, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Future of the French Navy

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This article violates WP:CRYSTAL. There are not much sources, no need for such speculative article. Any noteworthy information can be merged into the article French Navy.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 22:00, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to French Navy. Why was this an AFD? Use mergeinto next time. --Dhartung | Talk 22:18, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge per WP:Crystal concern. MrPrada (talk) 22:28, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Very strong keep There are thousands of possible sources on France's naval procurement plans which can be used and similar articles exist for the Royal Australian Navy, Royal Navy and Royal New Zealand Navy. All the information in this article appears to be correct, so it is not crystal ball gazing. --Nick Dowling (talk) 23:00, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.   —Nick Dowling (talk) 23:00, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirect per WP:CRYSTAL and what Dhartung said. — ComputerGuy890100  Talk to meWhat I've done to help Wikipedia 00:27, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect per above; short, somewhat speculative, constantly changing, really ought to be folded into another article. TomTheHand (talk) 01:41, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge per above TomStar81 (Talk) 02:53, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I've been able to confirm all details about ship construction in the latest edition of Jane's Fighting Ships (a very reliable source) and have updated the article. Contracts have been signed for the construction of most of these ships, and construction has begun in several instances, so there's no cystal ball gazing going on here. The article is in no way speculative as it is an accurate statement of the French Navy's future plans and should only change as French naval procurement plans change and new ships are delivered and ordered, which is an advantage of Wikipedia not being a paper encyclopedia. --Nick Dowling (talk) 09:04, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete/Merge per everyone except the author. :) The "future" belongs in a "projections" section in the main French navy article. WP:NOT#PAPER is not a free pass for inclusion, and the WP:FUTURE/WP:CRYSTAL violation is valid grounds for delete. This is not a one-shot event, and the long-term maintenance of these projections must be kept in mind as well. -- Fullstop (talk) 12:03, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm not the article's 'author', and didn't know that it existed until I spotted it as being listed for deletion. I don't see how ships which have been authorised by the French government are 'projections' and updating this kind of article is hardly a burden given the slow rate at which naval ships are built and the infrequent changes to shipbuilding plans. --Nick Dowling (talk) 23:03, 22 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong keep the article is sufficiently documented. As explained by Nick Dowling, WP:CRYSTAL does not apply here at all. There is absolutely no valid reason to delete this article while keeping List of future Intel Core 2 microprocessors for instance. Med (talk) 13:24, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is encyclopedic information which should stay in Wikipedia. Talk and/or project pages can be used to discuss whether this should be an independent article or should be merged with French Navy. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:02, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Not much different than Integrated Deepwater System Program and Zumwalt class destroyer. It does, however need expansion and or renaming. If Integrated Deepwater System Program had been named Future of the US Coast Guard it likely would have landed here as well. --Brad (talk) 23:54, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Note that WP:CRYSTAL states "scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place". There really shouldn't be a question of notability for this one. Also note that construction has started on a number of the ships; funding has also been secured for ships that have not begun construction. This would indicate that the events are almost certain to occur. WP:CRYSTAL appears to be irrelevant to this discussion. Parsecboy (talk) 11:16, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I don't really see a good argument for deletion. WP:CRYSTAL requires articles to not be unverifiable speculation, in other words they should not be original research. This article deals with modernization plans in the French Navy with several references so it is a verifiable article. It is also not speculation as of the four ship building projects discussed in the article one is quite advanced (both Horizon class destroyers are undergoing trials prior to entering service), two are under contract and construction has already began (FREMM class frigates and Barracuda class submarines) and the last one is planned, budgeted and inches away from a contract. in conclusion, the article is not unverifiable and is not speculative. Why should we delete it? --Victor12 (talk) 16:30, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * If I remember correctly, this article was originally created to lighten French Navy and History of the French navy, the naming being inspired by Future of the Royal Navy. It seems that when a Navy is documented enough on Wikipedia, a "procurement" or "future" article appears, as illustrated by Procurement programme of the Royal Australian Navy, Future of the Royal Navy, Royal New Zealand Navy Future Plans. In this light I would favour keep over merge. Rama (talk) 11:48, 25 March 2008 (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.