Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moon World Resorts

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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. Liz Read! Talk! 23:01, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Moon World Resorts

edit

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

Moon World Resorts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This stub frankly reads like an advertisement for an architectural fantasy project. This organization has apparently existed since 2000 but hasn't managed to actually get its project off the ground for over two decades. All of the sources in the references section seem to be puff pieces and/or interviews with the project's founder, without any basis in reality. Further searches for this mostly turned up hits from content farms. It hardly has signficant coverage from reliable sources. At best, this article is little more than a crystal ball speculating about a future project that may or may not happen. I propose this article be deleted, at least until something tangible about this project actually materialises. Grnrchst (talk) 17:44, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • All of these articles talk about it in the future tense and using vague terms like "perhaps", "could be", etc. These are exactly the kind of puff pieces I was talking about. --Grnrchst (talk) 20:47, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Ongoing construction projects can be notable, and this one certainly is. WP:CRYSTAL is about unverifiable speculation. Nothing in those articles is an unverifiable speculation. Plans are already in place, contracts were signed, and money--a lot of it--has changed hands - past tense. Just because there's no shovel in the ground doesn't mean this is all speculative. Owen× ☎ 21:01, 26 December 2023 (UTC) (Stricken out erroneous statement. Owen× ☎ 23:21, 28 December 2023 (UTC))[reply]
    @OwenX Plans are already in place, contracts were signed, and money--a lot of it--has changed hands - past tense. Where does it say that? All I see when I google "Moon World Resorts" "contract" is that Henderson has tried this stuff before, but in yet another location, namely Coachella, California in 2016 for 4 billion dollars, and that also went nowhere: https://eu.desertsun.com/story/news/local/coachella/2016/02/22/4b-moon-resort-coachella-tourism-official-doubtful/80082490/
    The plan was originally introduced in 2002 as a Las Vegas destination, but was stagnant for almost a decade while the company searched for a different location with the right amount of available and affordable space for the project. (...) But more than a decade since announcing a plan, the company has little money of its own for the project, nor have developers publicly lined up eager to spend, putting the idea as far out of reach in reality as, well, the moon itself.
    It seems like Henderson is peddling the same recycled idea since 2002, getting rejected everywhere, but just trying again and again with more publicity, hoping that some rich investor somewhere will bite some day, but it just never happens. Why would this latest Dubai iteration be any different? Wikipedia is not here to help this guy play his failing speculative game. NLeeuw (talk) 18:39, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You asked, Why would this latest Dubai iteration be any different?. As editors, it is not our job to predict the outcome of this project. It makes no difference to its inclusion in Wikipedia whether the project succeeds or fails. We also have articles about the biggest scams in history. The only question we need to answer is whether coverage today establishes notability. Your resentment of Henderson may be well justified, and your assessment of the likelihood of success of this project may be dead on, but neither are relevant to us here. We are here to document notable things, and the significant coverage this project generated is more than enough to meet our standards of notability. Owen× ☎ 20:19, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @OwenX You're right it's not our job to predict the outcome, whether positive or negative, as both fail WP:CRYSTAL. I don't "resent" Henderson as much as I think he's apparently incompetent at making his dream come true for over 21 years. I'm seeing a pattern here of a long series of failed attempts to get essentially the same idea being rejected, without the company ever having accomplished anything notable. The latest publicity barely changes anything, except that AP, Forbes and a CNN Travel item – apparently paid for by the Dubai government – are slightly more reliable sources than the rest of the publicity Henderson managed to create (at least he's somewhat capable of doing that, I'll grant him that).
    However, the more important question I asked was: Where does it say that Plans are already in place, contracts were signed, and money--a lot of it--has changed hands - past tense? I have not seen that anywhere in the cited sources. No concrete plans are already in place (there is no exact location, it's not even sure whether construction is supposed to begin in Dubai or some other place like Las Vegas, Coachella or China), no contracts have been signed, and no great amounts of money have changed hands (the 2016 Desert Sun article mentioned the company has little money of its own for the project, nor have developers publicly lined up eager to spend, and that situation seems to be exactly the same 7 years onwards). If I have missed anything of the sort, could you quote it for me please? Thanks in advance. NLeeuw (talk) 22:45, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You are absolutely right; I misread one of the sources. Plans are not in place, contracts were not signed, and I see no evidence of money changing hands. I've stricken out my earlier assertion. But again, even if this is nothing but Mr. Henderson’s pipe dream, the only question before us is whether this dream has received significant coverage in reliable sources. I share your skepticism as to the future of this project, but as NPOV editors, such views are irrelevant to assessing notability. Owen× ☎ 23:21, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks very much @OwenX! To me, the fact that there are no plans in place, no contracts, no money etc. means that the subject cannot pass Wikipedia:Notability per WP:NSUSTAINED and WP:NOPAGE, in particular Other times, a future event may clearly be suitable for a standalone page before it happens (such as the next upcoming Summer Olympics). However, before creating such an article, make sure that the likelihood of the future event occurring is reasonably assured. For example, the WikiProject Film strongly recommends that a standalone article for a new film be created only if reliable sources confirm that principal photography for the film has commenced, as completion of the film is generally seen out to the end from this point on. This is why it matters that construction has not begun at any of the places where Henderson has imagined his MOON building for over 21 years. (And as WP:NOPAGE, this is where concerns overlap with WP:CRYSTAL).
    Now, this is not necessarily a reason to say nothing about the MOON project at all; it just means it does not merit a standalone page. In the case of a film, you might have a standalone page about a film that was screened in cinemas successfully so as to be clearly notable, and then at the bottom of the article the director announcing ideas for a sequel that may or may not be made. It is fine to include that announcement at the bottom of the page of the film which has been made, but until principal photography of the sequel has commenced, it doesn't merit its own page.
    The question is, did Moon World Resorts accomplish anything else of notability, or has it been associated with something else notable, where we can perhaps merge some of the contents of this page to for the time being? I'm afraid the answer to that question is "no", but I remain open to many possibilities. One possibility could be a 1-line entry in the List of megaprojects with the status of "Proposed" under "Planned cities and urban renewal projects", section "Middle East", although I'm not sure it would even fit there. Thoughts? NLeeuw (talk) 08:38, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I personally would like to suggest that the middle section, outlining the specifics of the MOON projects, should be completely rewritten, as THAT section feels entirely like an ad. The "Services" section on the side also feels like slapped on print from an advertising pamphlet.
Recently, a well known Youtuber has provided good criticism on the fabled MOON project, if this may be "helpful" at all in either keeping the article, or updating it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1-ui89FsnI
Also, should an article be deleted if nothing came from the company/development as mentioned? is it not better to keep it as an entry for future references and research? Wip403 (talk) 03:38, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Wip403: Editors are encouraged to improve the article while the AfD is open. Go ahead and rewrite that section in a less promotional style. YouTube isn't considered a reliable source, but I believe the sources we already have in the article are enough to provide the content. I have no doubt you can improve the page.
We do not remove articles about a company or a project when the company dissolves or the project is shut down. Wikipedia has many articles about defunct companies and organizations, planned projects that never came to fruition, businessmen who died, wars that ended and empires that fell. If their existence was notable, it generally remains so after they're gone. Wikipedia isn't a business directory, it's an encyclopedia. Owen× ☎ 12:14, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per lack of WP:SIGCOV, and per WP:CRYSTALBALL. All three mainstream sources currently quoted say very little about the company or the actual project, mostly staying within the realm of speculation, and making some general observations about the housing market in Dubai that have nothing to do with MWR. There isn't even agreement on whether this MOON building will be built in Dubai or elsewhere (note that the Forbes March 2022 article doesn't even mention "Dubai"; Henderson speculates that Las Vegas is an obvious option, and in second and third place he thinks about perhaps China or the UAE), let alone a specific location, let alone a legal agreement to that effect. All AP May 2023 has to say is Henderson discussed the project at the Arabian Travel Market earlier in May in Dubai. That's it. There is no way that you can finish a 5 billion US dollar project by '2027/2028' if all you've done by May 2023 is speculatively talk about where it might be built and what it might look like, based some artist's impressions, and giving interviews around (the CNN Travel one seems to be sponsored by Dubai's government: This CNN Travel series is, or was, sponsored by the country it highlights.) This is beginning to look a lot more like a dubious company like Mars One that seeks publicity and funding with bombastic promises, but cannot actually deliver anything. The YouTube video unfortunately isn't a reliable source we can quote from, but does underline just how dodgy the whole project looks. Until legal agreements have been signed, a location been bought, and construction has actually begun, I think this deserves no article on Wikipedia, where it merely serves as an advertisement for something highly speculative and dubious (dare I say Dubaious?). NLeeuw (talk) 18:17, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Travel and tourism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 15:45, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no site/no funding/no contract in Dubai, and with a 20-year history of not having been built anywhere else. The sourcing isn’t strong either. KJP1 (talk) 11:22, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Apart from a few WP:CRYSTAL mentions in a small handful of speculative news articles, there's no indication that this resort will actually be built, nor that it is any more notable than the other crackpot proposals that have largely been forgotten by the collective consciousness over time. There's no planning, no granted permits, no confirmed location, no money, only a few vague plans. Until we actually start seeing these things materialise into reality, I strongly doubt that WP:SIGCOV can be met. Even if we treat the topic as a fantasy project rather than a real-life resort, the Wikipedia article itself certainly reads like a promotional piece, rather than objective coverage of a proposed megaconstruction project. --benlisquareT•C•E 14:33, 2 January 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Moon_World_Resorts&oldid=1193267858"