Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carnival Dream 3

Add links
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, per WP:CRYSTAL. Jayjg (talk) 00:27, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Carnival Dream 3[edit]

Carnival Dream 3 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Disputed PROD: This article is on a planned cruise ship which is not under construction, nor is even named. Therefore the title itself is WP:SYN, but the whole article is WP:CRYSTAL. There is also the issue that all of this can be better presented in the ship class article: Dream class cruise ship. It is also the desire/unwritten policy of WP:SHIPS that vessels are not notable enough for their own articles until they are named and under construction. -MBK004 04:07, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I realize that since this vessel will eventually be built this is all pedantic due to the fact that the vessel will then receive dedicated article, but I'll point you towards a recent AFD on a cruise ship under-construction (where I believe the line is drawn for ship notability): Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AIDAsol. -MBK004 04:22, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep
It has been suggested in wiki guidelines that articles about ships that do not yet exist should therefore not exist also. I am against that guideline since design and development of a ship is as worthy as its physical existance as it is one of the many stages in the creation of a ship. As stated in my reason for leaving the article in place, based on the production timeline of Carnival Dream class ships at Fincantieri, it takes 2 years to create a cruise ship top to bottom, as is the case with the Dream and the soon to be released Magic. So if Carnival Dream 3 is to come out in spring of 2012, it can only be assume that construction will begin in 2010 if it has not already. I am in communication with Carnival and Wartsila to track development of the Magic and will be requesting more info on the 3. I will also try to reach Fincantieri about their estimates of constructions shortly.
Keep in mind, the article of Carnival Magic has been around since March of 2007 but only on January 12, 2010 did the first parts get assembled in Italy. So if the Magic's article was created a full 3 years before the first pieces were assembled I think we could tolerate the Carnival Dream 3 article since that ship will start construction in the upcoming months...
Again, I must stress the importance of the design as a significant part of any timeline. Fincantieri already signed the agreement with Carnival to build the ship. In brief, let the article stand. It would be a waste of time to delete this article only to have to redo it within a few months. I am working at improving the sources, but some sources take time, especially the good ones! CDN Traveller (talk) 21:23, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge

I agree with MBK, this article is WP:CRYSTAL and purely speculative until construction begins (even once construction begins, most of the details currently stated as fact on the article could be subject to change) Not until she is completed does the majority of the data contained become fact. Currently the article reads like an advertising brochure and not like an encyclopaedia article. I'd suggest merging the content into Dream class cruise ship until such time as the ship becomes notable enough for its own page. (ie when construction begins) JonEastham (talk) 11:00, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep

Last no name user...Ship designs and plans that are approved and put on order can be considered as fact. Take fore example the Dream. Once the ship was ordered, the ship was built to specification and that data is as advertised. All wikipedia articles sound like advertising brochures when you think about it, so should we delete wikipedia? As I said before, the ship is fact already as it has been ordered and plans sent. Of course there might be minor changes to some data along the way but this can all be adjusted in the article as more information comes in. In fact every wikipedia article gets updated regularly when an new piece of information changes so why should this article be any different? CDN Traveller (talk) 11:44, 14 April 2010 (UTC) Strikethrough added as CDN Traveller has already !voted. Peridon (talk) 14:45, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've never read a wikipedia article that sounds like and advertising brochure (with the exception of this one.) You are confusing 'fact' with 'proposed.' You've filled out the infobox with proposed data, therefore citing them as fact. Until they become fact, they are WP:Crystal entries. It is fact for the Dream class, it is not fact for this ship. There is always the potential for this ship to be completed differently and the plans being changed before construction begins, therefore your rationale for citing approved designs/plans relating to what is just a name at the moment is incorrect. JonEastham (talk) 12:06, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment When the numbers change, we update it. Nothing is meant to be permanent. Today a guy is alive, tomorrow he's dead; you update it. Today a boat is afloat, tomorrow it sinks; you update it. That's what wikipedia is all about. CDN Traveller (talk) 20:58, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment "Ship designs and plans that are approved and put on order can be considered as fact." No. There is always the possibility that the ship WON'T be built yet, given the financial state of the world. It costs a lot of money to build a ship of this sort, and it takes a lot of cruising to get that back. The company would probably be well-advised to go ahead - but there's always the accountants and banks to reckon with. They can kill a project stone dead. Peridon (talk) 14:55, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentOk then, remove the article but then we'll have to remove alot of other Wikipedia articles such as Carnival Magic and Royal Caribbean's MS Allure of the Seas since these ships are not entirely completed and thus also subject to change or cancellation. If we use this rationale (presented by above comment) alot of Wikipedia would not exist. Life is unpredicable. So if the boat gets cancelled then we scrap it (article), if the stats or characteristic change then we update them. Keep in mind that wikipedia is not meant to be the perfect 100% 24/7 accurate encyclopedia. After all, anyone can post anything here. Facts and figures are known to fluctuate and as long as they are updated as soon as possible I see no harm to it. My rationale behind this was that my own google search for the next carnival cruise boat drew a blank i decided to create a wiki page that would cover what little is known about it so that whoever made a similiar search next would be presented with that bit of information as well as track the sources for future update. That is the true purpose of wikipedia. CDN Traveller (talk) 20:52, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the other articles shouldn't be there either.... I would have thought people going cruising would be interested in the ships already working rather than one not even started. Or are they going to stay at home and wait for it? "my own google search for the next carnival cruise boat drew a blank" - does that mean this is Original Research? There certainly are no references to back the article up. (The one given gives some figures about the Carnival Corp which are irrelevant.) Peridon (talk) 21:37, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
References were listed as external links. PS I've gone on 9 cruises with 4 different companies and am very much interested in the next boats coming out. CDN Traveller (talk) 22:43, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The 'Comment' immediately above makes little to no sense to me. There is a HUGE difference between a ship that is mostly completed on one hand, and one that hasn't started construction on the other. A ship that is only in the planning stages seems un-notable to me. David V Houston (talk) 12:23, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Article makes no claim of notability for this unbuilt ship. It just lists its specs, and given that the ship doesn't exist and the name of the article may not be the name of the ship, deletion is the best option. Abductive (reasoning) 15:59, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, my comment above and David V Houston and Abductive. Peridon (talk) 17:48, 20 April 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Carnival_Dream_3&oldid=1087637683"