Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SMX-25

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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:15, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SMX-25 (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)

• Delete Lacks notability. Not found outside of blogs or one mention in a Russian article on a Euronaval conference. This appears to be the only article that explicitly discusses this vessel: "French ships of the future: SMX-25 and ADVANSEA" in Army Herald, 2010 (in Russian). One mention in a reliable source does not make the topic notable. User:HopsonRoad 13:42, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:22, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:22, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:22, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Sources In French and English:

RÉMY MAUCOURT "DCNS présente un nouveau concept-ship sous-marin au salon Euronaval", L'Usine Nouvelle PUBLIÉ LE 29/10/2010 À 16H10.

"SMX-25 : DCNS dévoile son concept de sous-marin de surface" Mer e Marine (undated)

"Le SMX-25, le dernier concept de sous-marin de DCNS" Zone militaire Posté dans Forces navales, Industrie par Laurent Lagneau Le 08-10-2010

"DCNS-Lorient (56). Un sous-marin de surface présenté à Euronaval" Investigations Oanis et Oceanographiee le :26/02/2013 .

http://en.dcnsgroup.com/technology-innovation/smx-25/

http://www.dsi-presse.com/?paged=5

http://www.airgroup2000.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=5985325

http://www.defence.pk/forums/military-photos-multimedia/80759-euronaval-2010-a.html

"Das Boot? Das Running Shoe, More Like" Secret Projects Posted by Bill Sweetman at 5/24/2011 --Vyacheslav84 (talk) 15:25, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• 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]

• http://www.air-defense.net/forum/topic/10710-smx-25-petit-dernier/ and http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=11460.0;wap --Vyacheslav84 (talk) 15:59, 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]
  • If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list and Notability is not temporary. Notability is not temporary; once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage. --Vyacheslav84 (talk) 10:06, 16 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]
    • Что стоит за этим громкогласным заявлением? Речь идет и в самом деле об удивительном симбиозе надводного корабля и подводной лодки, которому авторы идеи дали пока лишь условное обозначение SMX-25 и продемонстрировалии проект на военно-морской выставке "Евронаваль-2010" And beyond. --Vyacheslav84 (talk) 18:23, 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]
  • Nautilus (Verne) --Vyacheslav84 (talk) 18:27, 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]
  • And the meaning? --Vyacheslav84 (talk) 09:03, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment More sources from Vyacheslav84:
  • https://books.google.com.ua/books?id=eczx0ZixNLEC&pg=PA70&dq=%22SMX-25%22+-mg&hl=ru&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=%22SMX-25%22%20-mg&f=false --Vyacheslav84 (talk) 09:01, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ныряющий фрегат Французские конструкторы предложили экзотический проект корабля будущего from Vzglyad (newspaper) --Vyacheslav84 (talk) 09:17, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Французы показали ныряющий фрегат from Ежемесячный журнал «Национальная оборона», издающийся с апреля 2006 года – респектабельное и авторитетное издание, посвященное широкому спектру вопросов, связанных с обеспечением национальной безопасности России. --Vyacheslav84 (talk) 09:19, 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]
• Comment I have made a brief entry on this topic at DCNS (company)#Submarines and underwater weapons, which would allow a redirect to that article. User:HopsonRoad 02:11, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea! 84.73.134.206 (talk) 07:46, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to DCNS (company)#Submarines and underwater weapons. I came in nominating deletion, but this solution works for me. User:HopsonRoad 13:08, 21 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.