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.
Comment Not sure how it plays with WP rules, but
DCNS is a significant player. If it presents a project at an international conference, it becomes "ipso facto" notable. Moreover most if not all the Russian references discuss the project in some or great (e.g.
[1]) detail. There are also articles in other languages (French;
[2],
[3]),
Italian, but indeed, the concept appears to have caught Russian fancy.
84.73.134.206 (
talk) 15:48, 15 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment I thank other editors for supplying more references. However, I would ask them to review
Wikipedia:Notability (events). There have been many experimental vessels that were built to test various novel concepts that were not sufficiently notable to warrant an article, here. All the citations above are about what is little more than a publicity campaign for a concept that was never even built! Its two claims to notability are novelty and the fact that it received mention in the specialty press for a brief period in 2010. Sincerely,
User:HopsonRoad 21:37, 15 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Unfortunately, most of the examples don't fit the definition of
reliable sources in Wikipedia. Many are blogs. Some are written apparently by a DCNS company representative. So, in effect, it's an echo chamber from a publicity campaign that we see above. Sincerely,
User:HopsonRoad 14:21, 16 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete - longstanding consensus is to keep articles on ships only after construction has begun, based on the principle of
WP:CRYSTAL. There are some exceptions when projected ship designs are independently notable (for instance, the repeated, failed projects to build a copy of Titanic), but that does not seem to be the case here.
Parsecboy (
talk) 15:27, 16 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Note that the
Nautilus (Verne) article does not cite any reliable sources that support its notability either—one source is about a submarine built by
Robert Fulton and the other is a "notice" in a museum—and is probably another example of an article that should be deleted.
User:HopsonRoad 21:17, 16 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Vyacheslav, that is not exactly a rebuttal of my point. That Nautilus is a fictional ship.
Parsecboy (
talk) 22:41, 16 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Merge and redirect relevant, verifiable data into
DCNS.
Buckshot06(talk) 07:59, 17 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Thank you for supplying these,
Vyacheslav84. They could be helpful in mentioning the SMX-25 in other articles, such as under
submarines or
DCNS (company). They appear to refer to a concept introduced at a conference, but never built. So, the precedence cited by
Parsecboy and the suggestion to add mention of the concept at DCNS (company) as a redirect from here are appropriate. A redirect means that, if you type in "SMX-25", you arrive at "DCNS (company)", perhaps at the section on "Submarines and underwater weapons". Sincerely,
User:HopsonRoad 11:42, 17 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete, per prior standing consensus; no construction has begun;
WP:CRYSTAL applies.
Kierzek (
talk) 12:35, 17 April 2017 (UTC)reply
This link has nothing to do with the article at all. --
Vyacheslav84 (
talk) 13:20, 17 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Indeed it does, Vyacheslav. This vessel has not been built, and there's no indication that it will be built. If the French Navy (or anybody else) actually orders a vessel built to the SMX-25 design, and the work actually starts, then it will merit having an article. But those possibilities are in the future, which is where WP:CRYSTAL applies.
Parsecboy (
talk) 13:33, 17 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Article about the draft of the vessel that exists (the project itself). --
Vyacheslav84 (
talk) 15:13, 17 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Yes, but until somebody cuts steel to build it, Wikipedia will not be concerned about it, since shipbuilders create these kinds of drafts all the time and they usually come to nothing. Unless the design is otherwise notable (and it has not been demonstrated that it is), then we don't need an article on it.
In addition, it seems rather telling that DCNS seems to have abandoned the project, given that their website returns
0 hits.
Parsecboy (
talk) 18:29, 17 April 2017 (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.
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.
Comment Not sure how it plays with WP rules, but
DCNS is a significant player. If it presents a project at an international conference, it becomes "ipso facto" notable. Moreover most if not all the Russian references discuss the project in some or great (e.g.
[1]) detail. There are also articles in other languages (French;
[2],
[3]),
Italian, but indeed, the concept appears to have caught Russian fancy.
84.73.134.206 (
talk) 15:48, 15 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment I thank other editors for supplying more references. However, I would ask them to review
Wikipedia:Notability (events). There have been many experimental vessels that were built to test various novel concepts that were not sufficiently notable to warrant an article, here. All the citations above are about what is little more than a publicity campaign for a concept that was never even built! Its two claims to notability are novelty and the fact that it received mention in the specialty press for a brief period in 2010. Sincerely,
User:HopsonRoad 21:37, 15 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Unfortunately, most of the examples don't fit the definition of
reliable sources in Wikipedia. Many are blogs. Some are written apparently by a DCNS company representative. So, in effect, it's an echo chamber from a publicity campaign that we see above. Sincerely,
User:HopsonRoad 14:21, 16 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete - longstanding consensus is to keep articles on ships only after construction has begun, based on the principle of
WP:CRYSTAL. There are some exceptions when projected ship designs are independently notable (for instance, the repeated, failed projects to build a copy of Titanic), but that does not seem to be the case here.
Parsecboy (
talk) 15:27, 16 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Note that the
Nautilus (Verne) article does not cite any reliable sources that support its notability either—one source is about a submarine built by
Robert Fulton and the other is a "notice" in a museum—and is probably another example of an article that should be deleted.
User:HopsonRoad 21:17, 16 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Vyacheslav, that is not exactly a rebuttal of my point. That Nautilus is a fictional ship.
Parsecboy (
talk) 22:41, 16 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Merge and redirect relevant, verifiable data into
DCNS.
Buckshot06(talk) 07:59, 17 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Thank you for supplying these,
Vyacheslav84. They could be helpful in mentioning the SMX-25 in other articles, such as under
submarines or
DCNS (company). They appear to refer to a concept introduced at a conference, but never built. So, the precedence cited by
Parsecboy and the suggestion to add mention of the concept at DCNS (company) as a redirect from here are appropriate. A redirect means that, if you type in "SMX-25", you arrive at "DCNS (company)", perhaps at the section on "Submarines and underwater weapons". Sincerely,
User:HopsonRoad 11:42, 17 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete, per prior standing consensus; no construction has begun;
WP:CRYSTAL applies.
Kierzek (
talk) 12:35, 17 April 2017 (UTC)reply
This link has nothing to do with the article at all. --
Vyacheslav84 (
talk) 13:20, 17 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Indeed it does, Vyacheslav. This vessel has not been built, and there's no indication that it will be built. If the French Navy (or anybody else) actually orders a vessel built to the SMX-25 design, and the work actually starts, then it will merit having an article. But those possibilities are in the future, which is where WP:CRYSTAL applies.
Parsecboy (
talk) 13:33, 17 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Article about the draft of the vessel that exists (the project itself). --
Vyacheslav84 (
talk) 15:13, 17 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Yes, but until somebody cuts steel to build it, Wikipedia will not be concerned about it, since shipbuilders create these kinds of drafts all the time and they usually come to nothing. Unless the design is otherwise notable (and it has not been demonstrated that it is), then we don't need an article on it.
In addition, it seems rather telling that DCNS seems to have abandoned the project, given that their website returns
0 hits.
Parsecboy (
talk) 18:29, 17 April 2017 (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.