Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of U.S. flagged cruise ships

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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Epistulae ad Familiares (talk) 14:41, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of U.S. flagged cruise ships

[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)

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

Both articles fall afoul of WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:SALAT - both are trivial and overly specific lists either of "cruise ships flagged in the US" or "passenger ships built in the US" that are otherwise of minimal encyclopediac value and only of interest to the editor. Epistulae ad Familiares (talk) 07:57, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Epistulae ad Familiares (talk) 07:57, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Epistulae ad Familiares (talk) 07:57, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nomination claims that the lists are indiscriminate and then, in the same breath, claims that they are overly specific. This is self-contradictory. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:01, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't see any valid rationale for deletion. WP:INDISCRIMINATE is for massive data dumps with no context, and obviously doesn't apply here. WP:SALAT doesn't actually specify any inappropriate topics for lists. Plenty of sources demonstrate the topic is notable thanks to the protectionist legislation e.g.: [1], [2],[3]. ----Pontificalibus 10:29, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Lord knows I'm no fan of lists (!), and take twisted pleasure every time I have reason to vote to delete them, but alas, on this occasion I actually think this is quite a useful list, given the Jones Act etc. I also don't think the policy grounds put forth in the nom apply here, so on that technical point alone I must decline. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:13, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:05, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the nomination doesn't make any sense. Clearly not indiscriminate, the list is very well defined and its entries are finite. postdlf (talk) 15:25, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly a finite list with explicit criteria, not indiscriminate, and notable in the context of the Passenger Vessel Services Act of 1886 (NOT the Jones Act). Not sure this would translate to other countries though, which do not have PVSA equivalents or a comparable number of included ships. Reywas92^Talk 17:55, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—as said above, this isn't indiscriminate. There is a specific legal reason this categorization is noteworthy. Imzadi 1979 → 21:05, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of entries link to their own articles, this is a logical navigation list. Dream Focus 01:59, 22 March 2021 (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.