Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MS Regal Star

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. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 03:21, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

MS Regal Star

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

No indication of notability per WP:GNG and no reliable third party sources to be found on the subject. Skamecrazy123 (talk) 19:52, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - was in the process of submitting an identical AfD and got beaten to the draw! Velella ^{Velella Talk} 19:55, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I don't know much about our ship notability standards, but for the purpose of GNG these links might be significant coverage: [1][2][3][4]. Unfortunately, most of them are in languages I don't speak so I can't say for sure. Daß Wölf 20:01, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can run them through Google Translate to see if I can get the gist of what they are saying (unless anyone who is fluent in Swedish could translate) --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 20:04, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:17, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:18, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:18, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:08, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WP:SHIPS convention has been that all ships over 100 tons/100 ft long, particularly those that do not belong to any vessel class, are notable. The article of course requires improvement (infobox etc.). Tupsumato (talk) 13:46, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Tupsumato. Kablammo (talk) 16:21, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - article bashed into shape, GNG now shown to be met. Mjroots (talk) 17:57, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mjroots, great work again. Parsecboy (talk) 18:06, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – article has been expanded and sourced nicely. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:27, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Daß Wölf 02:23, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as usual for significantly-sized ship articles at AFD. It always turns out that development is possible, thanks to constructive SHIPS editors. Take note, would-be ship-deleters, find another prey! :) --do ncr am 01:34, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Tupsumato. Manxruler (talk) 09:09, 27 April 2017 (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.