Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Replica Titanic
- 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. I'm closing this as a keep, and if some of those involved in this discussion still feel it should be merged I would encourage you to begin a merge discussion. (non-admin closure) —JmaJeremy✆✎ 02:58, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Replica Titanic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This page has been proposed for deletion in the past, and it was decided to be kept. However, I believe the situation has substantially changed.
The article originally covered a project to produce a replica Titanic which started in 1998, and terminated in 2006. In 2012, a new project was started, and details of this were incorporated in to the article, changing it to a general overview of the 'replica Titanic' concept. This has now been forked in to a separate article - Titanic II - which also contains relevant details of the previous project. I believe this makes this article redundant.
The second section (2012 project) is a summary of the main article, so does not contribute to the usefulness of this page. The remaining information all pertains to the previous project. I believe this does not warrant a full article for the following reasons:
- The subject is of dubious notability. The general quality of the references is poor, and although a few good references are included, I do not believe these are sufficient to support the article, as per WP:GNG.
- The article contains unverifiable speculation. The latter part of the 1998-2006 section is mainly speculation or original research. As per WP:OR, this is undesirable.
- The subject of the article is covered in appropriate detail elsewhere on Wikipedia. The page WP:REDUNDANTFORK.
The article has been through several iterations over two years, and has not yet produced a stable, encyclopaedic article. I believe the most appropriate course of action is deletion. MatthewHaywood (talk) 10:50, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with ]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The page Titanic II already covers the subject in depth appropriate for that page. What would a merger achieve? MatthewHaywood (talk) 18:04, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge but it is ]
- Comment The present project is far more notable than the one covered by the article up for deletion, which was abandoned years ago. Titanic II could be under construction within months. You're proposing we delete that? MatthewHaywood (talk) 10:05, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The Palmer Titanic II proposal remains to be just that - a proposal. Gous abandoned his proposed rebuild and there is still the SS Titan proposal out there (article long deleted) although it exists as a web site and a pipe dream as its organizers have no real plan to raise the $1B USD to bring it to completion. I'll grant you that Palmer has the financial means and has shown some detail as to the new ship's general arrangements. There are still compromises that must be made to meet SOLAS reqirements. (Lifeboat height and use of interior wood are two things that immediately come to mind.) If he has to make too many compromises he too may abandon the project. Therefore, I conclude that while all of these Titanic rebuild proposals meet WP:SIGCOV requirements for inclusion none has advanced to the point where one justifies a stand-alone article. Mariepr (talk) 13:06, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The Palmer Titanic II proposal remains to be just that - a proposal. Gous abandoned his proposed rebuild and there is still the SS Titan proposal out there (article long deleted) although it exists as a web site and a pipe dream as its organizers have no real plan to raise the $1B USD to bring it to completion. I'll grant you that Palmer has the financial means and has shown some detail as to the new ship's general arrangements. There are still compromises that must be made to meet SOLAS reqirements. (Lifeboat height and use of interior wood are two things that immediately come to mind.) If he has to make too many compromises he too may abandon the project. Therefore, I conclude that while all of these Titanic rebuild proposals meet
- Comment The present project is far more notable than the one covered by the article up for deletion, which was abandoned years ago. Titanic II could be under construction within months. You're proposing we delete that? MatthewHaywood (talk) 10:05, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge but it is ]
- Comment The page Titanic II already covers the subject in depth appropriate for that page. What would a merger achieve? MatthewHaywood (talk) 18:04, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support as per nomination. If there is anything of importance, it can be included in the Titanic II article. If I recall correctly, articles about future ships are not usually done before we are sure that the ship will be built (building contract, keel laying etc.), but the Palmer project has gathered quite a lot of publicity, which I think is enough to justify to current article (not to mention that the guy is rich enough to pull this one off). Tupsumato (talk) 19:34, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep both articles -- One is mainly about an abortive past project; the other about a ship that is allegedly about to start being built. We will need to review this in (say) six months and merge the Palmer project back to the replica article if the keel is not laid in that time. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:32, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "Alegedly about to start being built" - sounds like ]
- Keep -- there are sufficient high quality references available to confirm the notability of both projects. 86.162.112.41 (talk) 18:44, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.