Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Princess Kaguya (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   Delete, consensus is that the article is a crystal ball violation at this time. Davewild (talk) 21:30, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Princess Kaguya (ship)

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

Mooted cruise ship that has not even been ordered yet, let alone construction began, and so fails WP:CRYSTAL.  RGTraynor  03:15, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete - until construction actually begins, I'm afraid this fails per WP:CRYSTAL --T-rex 03:35, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions.   —Fg2 (talk) 05:29, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. Properly sourced and verifiable. This is not speculation. WP:CRYSTAL says: 1. Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. If preparation for the event is not already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented. The largest cruise ship ever to be built is notable, and planning is well-documented. --DAJF (talk) 05:52, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: "Almost certain to take place," when you're talking about a ship, isn't "we're drawing up blueprints." The keel hasn't even been laid yet. Upon a bit of research, I see some buzz on some websites, but the only reference from anything close to reliable is from a Lloyd's-related blog which turns up the less than convincing "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."     RGTraynor  06:08, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Are there any Wikipedia guidelines that say that construction has to have started before an article can be written? Cruise ships are not my area of expertise, but there is certainly no problem with articles about planned buildings and trains provided they are well documented as per WP:CRYSTAL, so I am interested to know why the rules are different for this planned cruise ship, especially when it is notable in claiming to be the largest in the world. --DAJF (talk) 09:38, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Leaving aside the "well-documented" part (which this isn't), WP:CRYSTAL's chief point is that there's a wide gap between speculation and reality. I wouldn't myself consider a supergiant cruise ship a terrific economic bet when the price of diesel has doubled in the last year alone, and it's telling that the only sources extant suggest that the financing to built this hasn't even come together yet.  This isn't yet a "planned" cruise ship.  This is something a cruise company wants to build, and when they put a keel down, we can talk then about an article.    RGTraynor  09:45, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete without prejudice at recreation if and when the vessel is actually built. -- JediLofty UserTalk 09:25, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete If we treat films as WP:CRYSTAL before principal production begins, then we can probably treat ships as WP:CRYSTAL before the keel is laid. Exceptions exist, of course, but the sourcing would have to support making such an exception. Protonk (talk) 05:28, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - Contracts for the construction of the Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carriers did not start being awarded until earlier this year. The idea that the 'keel must be laid before a ship can be considered worthy of an article' is not necessarily true, and we have featured articles on ships that were never completed (USS Illinois (BB-65)), and comprehensive ones on others that did not get past the drawing board (CVA-01). A closer look at the sources, and their validity, is needed rather than making our own guesses as to how likely we personally feel this project is to come off. Benea (talk) 17:56, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. That's a great point.  I think that is part of what WP:CRYSTAL is all about.  In the case of ships, we can make a claim that the further away from construction they are, the better sourcing we might need.  For instance, if this ship were ferrying passengers around right now, we would probably not ask for more than a 1 pager from the company describing dimensions and one or two minor references in trade publications or newspapers.  But if it is 5-6 years off, then we might have to ask ourselves if the speculative nature of the subject demands further sourcing.  At the very least, if we had sourcing about the construction itself we could write about that.  I think that is where most of the military construction sourcing comes from.  A large chunk of public funds go to pay for new ships, so there is some public interest (and hence news interest) in the subject.  Those sources were discussing (by and large) the construction as a project, rather than the ship itself. Protonk (talk) 18:15, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Weak delete I think on balance. There is too much coming from just one source, the company that is floating (no pun intended) this idea.  If things start to take off, ie financing is sorted, concrete plans are drawn up, etc then there'll be enough to write an solid article on. Benea (talk) 18:04, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak delete Violation of CRYSTAL; the keel hasn't even been laid yet. No prejudice towards recreation once construction actually starts. Parsecboy (talk) 17:57, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think the beginning of construction should be taken as the "notability start date" for good reasons given above. We should really base that starting point as the point at which, if nothing materialises, the article would still be notable. At the moment, if nothing more happens and this just becomes another "pie on the seas" idea (yuck, soggy!) then I can't see that a Wikipedia article is needed so I'm happy to go with delete without prejudice to recreation at a suitable time. However, for a private vessel, the date of ordering seems a better time than the beginning of construction - even if the project goes wrong after that point, it's still a notable project, and the reason for the failure to complete an order (the emergence of major engineering or financial issues?) would likely only add to notability, whereas as it currently stands the reasons for the failure of a company's internal project proposal to result in an order would not be particularly notable to the world at large. For proposed military vessels which form part of long-term naval strategic planning, and where a significant amount of government resources have been put into developing specifications, I think the time that notability begins is likely to be the point when planning has become somewhat concrete (to the extent that there is enough meaningful material to write an article, even if it is somewhat generic) which may be long before ordering begins. TwoMightyGodsPersuasionNecessity 13:36, 6 July 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.