Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alfa Nero

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The result was Withdrawn by nom. Eh, I was wrong. NAC. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:17, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alfa Nero[edit]

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

This boat, aside from citing size (59th largest yacht), appears to be generally unremarkable. To note, the article appears to be basically advertising the boat for charter, for all intents. There's some coverage pretty much talking about its opulence, and one of the links on the page indicate it was put up for sale in 2009 - but I'm really not feeling it. -- Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 04:27, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'd consider it WP:ARTSPAM unless author can establish WP:NOTABILITY —JmaJeremy ^talk _contribs 04:38, 7 March 2012 (UTC) -- !vote withdrawn[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Hardly WP:ARTSPAM; it was listed for sale in 2009, it likely has long since been sold. Meets "100/100" likely-to-be-notable standard, and a gBooks search reveals the ship listed in Lloyd's Maritime Directory (as well as in as being featured in a Eric Dickey novel). Also the ship is mentioned in what appears to be a significant newspaper] in the Canary Islands; the ship was named "Best Charter Yacht" in 2011 by a Monoco-based brokerage [1], further references: [2], [3], [4], [5] [6], [7], and more. Has an entire category in Wikipedia Commons. If there is an advertorial tone, that is to be fixed through editing, AfD is not for cleanup. Also, "I'm really not feeling it" is hardly a policy-based rationaile for deletion. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:45, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per everything The Bushranger says above. —Diiscool (talk) 13:52, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - plenty of good sources, clearly notable. 79.77.226.51 (talk) 21:38, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Bushranger. Needing expansion/improvement is not a reason to delete an article. WP:GNG appears to have been satisfied. Mjroots (talk) 06:39, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - if user:Jmajeremy changes his !vote, I'll withdraw. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:52, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Bushranger. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 13:11, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Vote Changed. It was difficult to establish notability from the limited content in the current article, but now I see from other comments that it is likely to become notable. —JmaJeremy ^TALK _CONTRIBS 06:45, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- ...aaaaaand we're good. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:17, 11 March 2012 (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.