Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Project 21956


 * 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   merge to Future_of_the_Russian_Navy. I leave it up to a subject matter expert to figure out how much information should be merged. In any case, leave a redirect behind. No bias against breaking this back out into a stand-alone article if at some future time, sufficient reliable independent sources emerge. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:33, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Project 21956

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article is about a vessel concept identified by a project name or number. Typically, ship design companies create and publish concepts identified by some name or number every now and then, but only a fraction of them will ever be built. In this case, none of these "Project 21956" ships have been built or even ordered - it's just a concept that the ship design company hopes someone would buy. In WP:SHIPS, "proposed ships" are considered notable enough to warrant an article (i.e. not fail WP:CRYSTAL) when the shipbuilding contract is awarded (or was awarded but later cancelled) or there is (was) otherwise strong indication (e.g. strong media publicity) that the vessel will be (or would have been) built. This is not the case with this article and thus I have proposed it for deletion. Tupsumato (talk) 14:17, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2014 April 24.  — cyberbot I  Notify Online 14:27, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Delete - until the first keel is laid, it fails CRYSTAL. Plain and simple. Parsecboy (talk) 14:34, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Keep but reword - An alternative would be to reword the article so it talks about the project rather than as if the ships already existed (as it does at present). This would be appropriate if the project itself is notable which it seems to be as there are several references. It is certainly the sort of thing a reader might reasonably be searching for. -Arb. (talk) 09:04, 25 April 2014 (UTC)


 * It is getting plenty of page views, 13,600+ in the last 90 days. See http://stats.grok.se/en/latest90/Project_21956 -Arb. (talk) 09:10, 25 April 2014 (UTC)


 * That doesn't mean it's not a violation of WP:CRYSTAL - we routinely delete pages that receive quite a lot of hits if they don't meet our inclusion policies. Ships that weren't built (and most of those that were cancelled after work began) usually don't merit an article (and when they do warrant an article, it's because they are discussed significantly by reputable naval historians, and usually merged in with related topics - as in the case with French battlecruiser proposals or German FK cruiser designs). At best, this article could be merged into a hypothetical List of destroyers of Russia and the Soviet Union if someone wants to go through the trouble of creating it. Parsecboy (talk) 12:02, 25 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I might be failing some kind of Wikipedia policy here by making this comparison, but in my eyes "Project 21956" is comparable to e.g. Aker ARC 100 HD, a conceptual design that was published last spring and was featured in a number of high-profile ship technology publications. While I wrote an article about oblique icebreakers in general and another about the one that is being built right now, I haven't mentioned it in Wikipedia. As a project, it is simply not notable enough.
 * By the way, of the "several references", 50% are from the design bureau's own website. Tupsumato (talk) 17:05, 25 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Merge to List of destroyers of Russia and the Soviet Union, which I plan to get a start on tomorrow. There's no hulls laid down so it's "WP:CRYSTAL unless WP:GNG", and GNG isn't met here. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:53, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I started working on that and quickly went "Nope". But I did find a better target, where the ship is already mentioned, so redirect to Future of the Russian Navy. - The Bushranger One ping only 08:02, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 03:18, 3 May 2014 (UTC)




 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 20:22, 11 May 2014 (UTC)


 * legit article --Crossswords (talk) 06:44, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Under what basis do you conclude that the article is in accordance with Wikipedia's policies? Parsecboy (talk) 20:12, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

————————— I take serious issue with the using the ship number (and lack of name) as a point against this article. The actual class and ship names are allocated by the Russian Navy, and done so after production. Just because French or American companies produce promotional names does not mean that this is the practice elsewhere. IMHO, it shows a degree of ignorance of Russian naval design to use this argument. There is no way that this design is significantly less notable than the DDG-X/DDG-1000 was before it was procured. Hrimpurstala (talk) 14:25, 22 May 2014 (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.