Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Un-Named Carnival Ship

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. Cbrown1023 22:05, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Un-Named Carnival Ship

Un-Named Carnival Ship (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - (View log)

I had {{prod}}ed this article some time ago, and another user has just done so (both {{prod}}s were removed). Whilst I appreciate this is not really a case of WP:NOT a crystal ball (Carnival have, after all, ordered this ship) I really do not think that an "as yet unnamed" cruise ship, on which very little information has been released, merits an article on Wikipedia at this time. Until more information is released by Carnival, it would seem sensible to move the pertinent three lines of information to Carnival Cruise Lines (in place of the "Un-Named Class" section) and delete Un-Named Carnival Ship (and it's associated - laughable - redirect Un-Named Carnival Ship (ship)). └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 17:52, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete and merge to Carnival Cruise Lines per nomination. └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 17:52, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete/merge It's crystalballing in my view, to have an article on a ship which may never be launched Bwithh 18:22, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge to the main article until such time as more information becomes available. All info is externally verifiable, either through the Carnival press release, or through Fincantieri's list of ships built/building. Send the redirect to hell. -- saberwyn 21:34, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - It's not crystal ball in any shape to have an article on a ship on order, any more so for a building under construction (two of them, actually, Carnival confirms they've got two of the same size and plans building for 2009 and 2010 service dates respectively). Money has been paid, contracts are signed, there are plans - it's real. If it were never going to get more detail, then merging it in to the parent article would make sense, but we know that more info will be released on the ship as it moves through the construction process and towards service. Any article on a confirmably real notable item, and two ships among the world's 10 largest cruise ships are notable, is worth having. The article will grow over time to have good content (as much as the other cruise ship articles), and should be kept for now. Deleting it now, just to recreate it as the ship nears its launch date, is silly and a waste of time. Georgewilliamherbert 04:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment I wouldn't doubt the notability of the ship(s) even whilst under construction - I just don't see the sense in a separate article with minimal information, and which people are unlikely to specifically search for. A few sentences in the Carnival article would seem much more useful to the public reading that article. The process of merging the article now, only to merge it back out again in a years time is hardly a lengthy process - and certainly not a "silly waste of time" if it improves the quality and usefulness of our content in the meantime. I do fully agree with Capitalistroadster below that the ship(s) will merit their own article once named and launched. └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 08:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment The ship is set to debut on September 2009, it's what, only January 2006? And if deleting articles that are not up to WP's standards, then being silly and wasting time is worth the effort. Berserkerz Crit 13:04, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. At this stage it is worth noting that Carnival is building the ships in their article. However, it would be preferable that we have an article once the ships are named as people looking for the information at this stage would be more likely to look at the Carnival article that enter the term Un-named Carnival Ship expecting an article. The redirect is probably not going to be searched for.Capitalistroadster 05:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete and Redirect to Carnival Cruise Lines. Pretty much crystal balling (yes, its sourced but the only ref links so far seems to be the owner and ship builder). How notable these ships would be given that they will be #11 down the line (in tonnage) compared to RMS Queen Mary 2 and MS Freedom of the Seas? --Eqdoktor 09:09, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete and no Redirect. May not be crystal balling as much as other articles but it violates WP:NOTE. A press release does not notability make. Who would look Wikipedia up for a unnamed ship of Carnival Cruise Lines?? The news of the press release is better suited to the main Carnival Cruise Lines article. I prodded it because I am new to deletion processes and wanted an admin or somebody more experienced to look it up and judge it for themselves, but after finding out my prod was removed, I'm glad somebody Afd'd it. And be glad I didn't prod the other ships, they look like blatant advertisements. Only those ships involved in the Hurricane Katrina relief effort are suited for Wikipedia. Even the main Carnival Cruise Lines article doesn't have third-party references making it look like an advertisement as well, except for the Hurricane Katrina section. Berserkerz Crit 13:04, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
We should be glad you didn't prod the other ships?! I find it hard to think that all those prods would have come to anything if you had of done - some of the largest cruise ships in the world are most definitely notable as is Carnival Cruise Lines. The fact that many of the articles may be short and lacking adequate references is a reason to improve them, not delete them. └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 22:20, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete and Merge to Carnival Cruise Lines. People will be looking for information on them there, not at the present title. Choess 09:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. After deletion, no objection to redirect... Addhoc 15:18, 21 January 2007 (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.