Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RMS Titan

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. j⚛e decker ^talk 22:37, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RMS Titan

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG, plus WP:CRYSTAL. SchuminWeb (Talk) 22:26, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:MADEUP pie-in-the-sky pipedream. No sources, no credible possibility of this happening. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:09, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete...believe it or not, there actually is a group proposing this: SS Titan Foundation. It does, however, very much fail WP:CRYSTAL (and WP:ITWILLNEVERFLY, which I just made up, and the meaning of which should be obvious!). Not a hoax, but it's definitly something that will never happen, and is something not worthy of including in Wikipedia. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 23:45, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Possible non-primary-source link? - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 23:48, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The Titan Foundation is just why we don't rely on primary sources. Anyone can have a website. Anyone can claim that some charities might be interested in a future cooperation. There are claims of Harland & Wolff being the builders, but that isn't even a functional building yard any more. SS Nomadic (which exists) is too short of funds to undergo restoration. None of this adds up to a new-build ship.
  The Suomi link doesn't seem to be the same project. For that matter there's already one dry-land 90% scale replica of Titanic, the one for the film. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:56, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oh, I know, that's why I'm saying Delete. It's just that it's not a speedy-able blatant hoax IMHO (which the article was tagged as). - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 01:08, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Ah, TenPoundHammer and his overzealous speedy nominations. The thought of speedying it did, however, cross my mind when I was nominating it, but I ultimately determined that it was not up to that standard, thus why I took it to AFD. SchuminWeb (Talk) 06:01, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yes. I don't mind the zeal so much, but to speedy something already at AfD is IMHO, outside of some very narrow vandalism articles, a usurpation of those editors who have already commented there. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:31, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment mention anything notable at Olympic class ocean liner. But Delete this article, it can't be "RMS" - I sincerely doubt the Royal Mail will allow Royal Mail to be shipped aboard to make that designation allowable. 76.66.194.128 (talk) 06:13, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- In fairness, the "RMS" designation is a wholesale invention of a Wikipedia editor, HecRPD (talk · contribs). The WWW site says SS Titan. Uncle G (talk) 16:00, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I wouldn't add anything to Olympic class ocean liner, either, because by definition, it's not. There were three Olympic class liners - no more, and no less - and one cannot add another so easily a century after the fact. SchuminWeb (Talk) 18:22, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Perhaps a single paragraph at RMS Titanic, saying "a proposal for a replica was floated*, blah blah blah"? (* - unintentional pun, I swear) - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 19:43, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Only if someone with a good reputation for accuracy who has independently checked the facts says so. Otherwise Colonization of Mars would get information all about how Uncle G will get there ahead of everyone else, based purely upon a WWW site saying so. Uncle G (talk) 20:22, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - If it's SS Titan, then perhaps it should be mentioned at SS Titan instead? 76.66.202.72 (talk) 02:22, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I looked, but I couldn't find anything outwith the single WWW site already mentioned in the article. This is not notable because the world simply hasn't noted it. I could put up a WWW site documenting Uncle G's Project to Colonize Mars, but it wouldn't be worthy of an encyclopaedia article until someone, independent of me, had researched, fact checked, written, and published about that. There are, in this article's case, simply no independent sources to be had. Delete. Uncle G (talk) 16:00, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes there has been some pervious people that tried this and failed,but we aren't.As a matter of fact in 2011 there are going to be an event in both the US,Ireland and Austrialia.Plus theres have been talks with Harland and Wolff already.A document has been posted on at the following link. http://www.sstitan.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=h1487f39R3A%3d&tabid=103&mid=461 - HecRPD

Then Delete It,what else can I tell you.I'll post it somewhere else than- HecRPD —Preceding undated comment added 21:00, 29 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

(Assumed Keep) Yes there has been some pervious people that tried this and failed,but we aren't.As a matter of fact in 2011 there are going to be an event in both the US,Ireland and Austrialia.Plus theres have been talks with Harland and Wolff already. A document has been posted on at the following link. http://www.sstitan.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=h1487f39R3A%3d&tabid=103&mid=461 HecRPD

I've re-added the article creator's comment, which had been deleted in some edit mixups. It's worth reading the link - it does appear that Harland & Wolff have indeed been approached for discussion in building this. Their response was a polite refusal, and an offer to at least draw up a feasibility study for £100k. Mind you, I could draw my own feasibility study up rather more cheaply and I suspect I'd give the same answer. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:56, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If and when this proposed ship is actually under construction it will be worthy of inclusion but not now. Brad (talk) 10:57, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with no prejudice should construction ever start, as is customary with ships. Haus^Talk 11:48, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice to re-creation iff the project actually gets off the ground and construction starts. Mjroots (talk) 12:49, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SS Titan (2012)

Delete - obvious CRYSTAL issues here. We don't generally have articles on new ships until the keel's been laid, or at very least the contract has been awarded. Parsecboy (talk) 12:59, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and comments above. Write the article when the ship is built.—Diiscool (talk) 18:56, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Princess_Kaguya_(ship) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Princess Kaguya (cruise ship). Kablammo (talk) 22:16, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Like someone said on my RMS Olympic III article. There should be a article about a ship when the keel is minimum build. Peekarica (talk) 14:24, 5 December 2010 (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.