Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MV Portaferry II

: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 Keep. Apparently I was wrong in nominating it and new sources reinforce GNG. Plus at this point it is pretty much WP:SNOW. Sadads (talk) 10:28, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

=[[MV Portaferry II]]=

:{{la|MV Portaferry II}} – (View AfDView log)

:({{Find sources|MV Portaferry II}})

Contested prod of non-notable ferry, that is not a full ocean going vessel and has no significant secondary coverage in sources outside of the ferry service information published by the organization that owns the vessel. Sadads (talk) 13:46, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

  • Keep WP:SHIPS convention is that all ships over 100 tons / 100 ft long are notable. Portaferry II is [http://www.e-ships.net/index/P9.shtml 179 DWT]. [http://www.irishseashipping.com/archives/subsite/news/2006/11_2006/112006.htm Other sources] [http://www.irishseashipping.com/archives/subsite/news/2001/102001/102001.htm are available]. WPs informed. Mjroots (talk) 13:58, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Previous ship article AfD's for info.
  • Weak keep. I wouldn't want to rely on a convention that all ships over 100 tons / 100 ft long are intrinsically notable (this must be some new definition of notability of which I was hitherto unaware). However, there does seem to be just enough discussion in independent sources so I think it just barely passes the GNG. bobrayner (talk) 14:02, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
  • That is the general convention, but GNG and RS also apply. Empire Darby meets the criteria, but I was unable to find enough info to significantly expand on the list entry, so I decided not to create a separate article on the ship rather than create a stub. Mjroots (talk) 07:22, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep. The lack of sourcing is not the articles fault, and Google points to a solution. Should be easy to supplement the sourcing. Weakopedia (talk) 15:16, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep; article is expanded, has historic aspect. Re: WP:SHIPS convention, Notability of ships over 100 tons: Many ships have similar names, or long gaps in their histories. The ability to definitively identify ships with capacity of 100 tons or more can facilitate documentation of topics that involve the relations existing between different geographic areas, as well as topics that involve the movement of people or goods. Any ship of this size has both a significant economic impact as well as potential for impact on notable events. Djembayz (talk) 17:13, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

  • Keep. As others have pointed out, conventions and sources are adequate. Benea (talk) 10:12, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

: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.