Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Princess Kaguya (cruise ship)


 * 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   speedy deleted under CSD G4 as a substantially identical repost to content previously deleted after debate.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:06, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Princess Kaguya (cruise ship)

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

This is a new article on a concept for a projected cruise ship, which appears to be a concept of its promoter, and lacks financing, a start date, and an operator. A prior article on the project was deleted, Articles for deletion/Princess Kaguya (ship)  The deleted article was sourced to the official website, and to another website which apparently allows anyone to submit content; the cited page of that source copied text from the official website,  but with elementary errors (such as equating gross tonnage with weight). In the present article the only sources are the official website (last updated in 2007) and the Thai Wikipedia. The project is an unrealized idea, and nothing more; as with the prior article this one fails WP:CRYSTAL, as there is nothing to indicate the project is "almost certain to take place". (While the article indicates that the piece is in the middle of further work, its basic flaw cannot be remedied by expansion.) Kablammo (talk) 00:56, 10 November 2008 (UTC) Just came across this, which quotes Lloyd's List: "Thursday 29 March 2007 A NEW cruiseship giant could be in operation by 2012 if detailed negotiations on a massive financial package now under way is finalised by the end of this year." I can find no indication the financing was put together by the end of last year, or that the vessel has been ordered. Kablammo (talk) 13:15, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete--nice work by the nominator. WP is not a crystal ball, indeed. Drmies (talk) 01:47, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. WP:CRYSTAL per nom. Wouldn't this be a violation of WP:G4 as well and therefore eligible for speedy deletion? D ARTH P ANDA duel 01:51, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - The ship has been ordered, but that doesn't mean it will necessarily be built. Recommend deleting this article until at least the keel is laid, at which point it should be recreated (there should also be more references at that point). Parsecboy (talk) 04:27, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete (G4) — Yes, this does meet G4 as this is blatant recreation of deleted material. It's only an asinine attempt to shirk the deletion process by recreating it under another name, in which I say 'nice try.' MuZemike  ( talk ) 04:48, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as there are no independant, reliable sources at this time to support the article (one source is the project webpage itself, which is not independant, and as mentioned above has a cobweb problem, the other source is a Wikipedia article, which should never be used as a source for another article). I have no qualms about the article being recreated at a later date, as if a cruise ship of this size and design is actually laid down, its going to generate a fair amount of media attention, from which the new article can be reliably sourced. -- saberwyn 06:49, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete for the reasons outlined by Saberwyn above. However, I would not nescessarily hold the fact that the ship is not yet in construction or that she might never be realised as a reason for deleting the article if enough verifiable sources are available. There are cases where an article on a never realised ship might be called for; a case point would be Cunard Line's mid-90s plans for a new ocean liner that preceeded the QM2 project. This has been documented in at least two publications (more are likely to exist) and had the project been realised it would have had such a large impact on the company that a page might be called for. Obviously this reasoning—even if acceptable—does not apply to Princess Kaguya; I merely wanted to mention it. — Kjet (talk · contribs) 19:13, 10 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete per G4, so nominated. Also fails WP:CRYSTAL. ukexpat (talk) 22:40, 10 November 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.