Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Future ship project 21

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. ✗plicit 12:00, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Future ship project 21

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Unsourced sub-draft quality stub, barely improved since 2012. Dronebogus (talk) 05:16, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:43, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 06:41, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only two Google news search results appear. One from January 17, 2012 [1] about the proposed Future Ship Project 21st Century. The other search result [2] is hidden behind a paywall. So it was never made and got little attention even as a suggestion. Dream Focus 08:42, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It received attention. Not quite the attention that was desired.
- "New royal yacht: how 'spontaneous' calls for relaunched Britannia were carefully stage-managed". The Guardian. 2012-01-21.
- "Royal yacht idea considered by Cameron". BBC News. 2012-01-16.
- "New royal yacht 'not appropriate', says Cameron". Channel 4 News. 2012-01-16.
- "Three rival groups vie to give Queen a new yacht". The Times. 2012-05-28.
Apparently someone named "Blunkett" liked the idea, according to its proponent at least, when it was renamed from "Cadland" to "FSP21". But there's also a record of rejection going back to the 1990s, according to the same proponent.
- Bawtree, David; Richardson, Colleen (2005). "Modern education before the mast" (PDF). Imperial Engineer (3): 9. Blunkett responded with enthusiasm.
Uncle G (talk) 11:07, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - At best this is is a case of TOOSOON. An article on a ship that might be built which has little notable coverage seems pointless and not encyclopaedic. Dunarc (talk) 22:03, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If a new royal yacht is completed it obviously will have and deserve its own article, but not now, and certainly not an article as low-quality as this one. RobinCarmody (talk) 00:22, 19 March 2022 (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.