Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Utopia ocean liner


 * 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. Cirt (talk) 10:48, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Utopia ocean liner

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

WP:CRYSTAL applies to this article about a residential ocean liner project that has not begun construction and for which the contract hasn't even been signed yet. There is one legitimate reliable source in the article (the other two are press releases), but one magazine piece does not make this project notable. Creator contested prod. RL0919 (talk) 21:18, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment No say yet on whether or not to keep it, but I just found another source. CNN Money ran an article/photo gallery on it. link:http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2009/real_estate/0912/gallery.Utopia_residences_ocean_liner/index.html. C628 (talk) 23:47, 22 December 2009 (UTC) Keep wp:ships has many articles about ships that are not yet under construction. There are also 2 Featured Articles about ships that were never even built. If the construction of this particular ship is canceled then the article should be updated accordingly. There seems to be enough verification of pending construction for this to stand. --Brad (talk) 13:09, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Incubate for a while until this is farther along. Even a "binding" letter of intent, which is just a contract, does not mean this will actually be built, only that damages would be available in case one party backed out.  As I said when I originally PRODded this article, I think this will be ready for an article perhaps when the keel is laid down.  In addition to WP:CRYSTAL, consider a comparison to WP:NFF, which holds that "[f]ilms that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles.  Budget issues, scripting issues and casting issues can interfere with a project well ahead of its intended filming date."  Although Utiopia ocean liner is so far a well-written stub, and this proposal has been covered on CNN.com and elsewhere, in the end I think the same principle must apply.    Glenfarclas   ( talk ) 00:15, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That'd work fine for me. But should probably be taken out a bit before the laying of the keel, depending on the level of publicity surrounding it. Most ships get articles pretty soon after they're formally ordered, not once construction has begun. C628 (talk) 03:12, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Since this project is relatively likely to be notable if it does go forward, I have no objection to incubation. --RL0919 (talk) 03:57, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Could you point us to those two specific FAs so that we can evaluate whether they are relevantly similar? --RL0919 (talk) 16:06, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 00:46, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Weak Keep planned projects if they attract enough notice are notable. The Forbes article is sufficient. But I am a little concerned that even it is just repeated the PR handout in very similar language. If genuine, there should be some more sources.    DGG ( talk ) 06:22, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak keep per DGG and Brad - the project seems fairly notable and I think it appears far enough ahead to be worth an article, if written properly. However, if this article is kept it would probably need at least some rephrasing, but I also think it should be moved to Utopia (cruise ship); if it's anything like The World (which is what it looks like from the website), it will be a cruise ship not an ocean liner.  The image given there also gives that impression, and I can't find anywhere on the website where they call it an ocean liner. Jhbuk (talk) 16:39, 29 December 2009 (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.