Login
Login

WP:Articles for deletion/TITANIIC

: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. Sandstein 15:29, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

=[[:TITANIIC]]=

{{AFD help}}

:{{la|TITANIIC}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/TITANIIC Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|TITANIIC}})

TITANIIC is another Replica Titanic project that does not appear to have advanced beyond the proposal stage as there is no formal announcement of a signed shipyard contract. If falls into WP:CRYSTAL as there is no clear fundraising strategy to raise the hundreds of millions of dollars. So it is very unlikely to ever get built.

It has serious WP:VERIFIABILITY citation issues as the inline citations are in Czech. Any English language online references to the project appear to be Wikimirrors. I ran the Czech web sites cited through Google translate and they appear to be interviews with the project leader on sites that have minimal fact checking and/or editorial oversight. To give one example, the machine translation quoted the project leader as claiming that QM2 designer Stephen Payne was working for his project for free. Nor have I found any independent source to support his claim of shipyard STX France having an official business partnership with the TITANIIC project. The organization also fails WP:ORG for notability as it has no coverage beyond the Czech web sites and there is no inherit notability by claiming a connection with a notable naval architect or comparison to the Clive Palmer Titanic II. Finally, there is serious WP:COI by the page creating editor whose name also appears on their web site as a staff employee.

Merging this article into Replica Titanic still would not address the verifiability problems. This organization appears to be a dream by a promoter who has built a very nice web site but has no engineering team, realistic fund raising strategy, or idea who would operate the ship. Wikipedia is not a free publicity site to give legitimacy to a fund raising cause. Blue Riband► 00:28, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete as per nom. Jmertel23 (talk) 01:24, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom.TH1980 (talk) 01:32, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

:*Comment: If we were to use steel cut as a criteria for inclusion then an entire category, Cancelled ships of the United States Navy, would be up for AfD. Then do we do about the USS United States (CVA-58) which had its keel laid only to have it broken up when funding was withdrawn? If there is widespread notable press and industry coverage in reliable sources then it would meet WP:Notability regardless of our personal opinions of the project sponsors.Blue Riband► 02:45, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

:::Steel cut occurs before keel laying; sometimes by many months. (See MSC Seaside for an example.) Comments on the two Princess Kaguya AfDs linked above advocated for keel laying as the trigger for an article, which is more stringent a standard. As to notability: widespread publicity, is not the sole criterion to be met for an article to appear on Wiki; the project must be reasonably certain to take place, per WP:CRYSTAL. Kablammo (talk) 12:55, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom who deserves a well done for what looks like a very thorough WP:BEFORE check. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:25, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete per tags on that page ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to me) 03:55, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete as sources are few and information superficial it appears as having not progressed beyond an idea of a single mind --Baerentp (talk) 10:15, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete article is written very promotionally, and this looks like more of an idea for a project than a project that is actually underway. Tillerh11 (talk) 19:15, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom. The promotional tone is not fitting. Snowycats (talk) 22:45, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom. Seems promotional, has not progressed much and lacks significance and reliable sources. trainsandtech (talk) 21:29, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.