Future of the United States Navy: The comparable articles for other navies are rich with prose.  At best should be merged without redirect.  RadioactiveBoulevardier ( talk ) 15:19, 20 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and United States of America .  RadioactiveBoulevardier ( talk ) 15:19, 20 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 18:45, 20 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It's not clear what's actually out of date or if the tag itself is out of date, but that's an editing issue and not a reason for deletion.  While prose about the future would be great, the lack therof is also no reason to delete this list.  However, I am undecided if this should be merged to List of current ships of the United States Navy#Future ships or kept and renamed to List of future ships of the United States Navy with that section merged here instead.  Reywas92 Talk 20:42, 20 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Category:Military planning shows plenty of lists like this with this naming convention.   I don't know why, but there should be a discussion somewhere about this.   The items on this list are notable enough to have their own Wikipedia articles, so this is a valid navigational list, far more useful than a category since additional information is listed.  D r e a m Focus 08:28, 21 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I would argue that it is not out of date since less than a month ago there has been a big update with new auterized ships added.  Otherwise I would also agree it could be renamed to List of future ships of the United States Navy as mentioned by Reywas92 .  102Legobrick 12:12, 21 June 2024 (UTC+2) Delete .  The article as it currently stands is covered by List of current ships of the United States Navy#Future ships .  Redirecting the title to that location is a poor fit because any article at this title should cover more than just future ships (what about aircraft, additional technologies, etc.?).  If the article is kept, I would prefer to see it moved to List of future United States Navy ships , similar to List of future Spanish Navy ships .  RunningTiger123 ( talk ) 19:30, 22 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment/no opinion .  There is a significant overlap with List of current ships of the United States Navy#Future ships , hence potentially a content fork.  But this page is more detailed, covers partly different data and fits to the series of similar pages for other countries.  My very best wishes ( talk ) 02:16, 25 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  21:09, 27 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Almost sounding like WP:NOTCRYSTAL .  Lorstaking ( talk ) 09:58, 29 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] This is a very poor argument, I see nothing that is speculation.  Most of these ships already have articles and they are sourced that they are actually under construction or have Navy orders.  Reywas92 Talk 22:46, 30 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] "Crystal ball" is for films and other entertainment media that might not ever get completed.   When something is paid for, and under construction, its going to be completed.   These things cost a fortune.  D r e a m Focus 22:41, 3 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Rename to List of future ships of the United States Navy but keep.   No opinion on a merge to List of current ships of the United States Navy#Future ships ; the "builder" column seems like the only content that would be merged.  Walsh90210 ( talk ) 01:43, 5 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Walsh90210 , renaming is an editing decision that is outside the possible options for an AFD closure.  If that is the outcome you seek, you need to argue for a Keep and then a discussion on a page title can happen.  L iz Read!  Talk!  03:52, 5 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with List of current ships of the United States Navy#Future ships : Unnecessary content fork that makes maintenance of both lists more difficult.  I note that none of the other sections on List of current ships of the United States Navy have the builder or status columns, but I think more information is better.  Additionally, status only makes sense the future ships section, and the builder could be added to the other list sections as well.  I'm not persuaded by the fact that other lists exist for other nations per WP:WAX .  voorts ( talk / contributions ) 01:47, 5 July 2024 (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.

Discussion outcome: no consensus