Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Golden Jubilee (charter vessel)

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. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:15, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MV Golden Jubilee[edit]

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

Non-notable pleasure boat. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:07, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not appear to meet general guidelines of WP:N. Eddie.willers (talk) 20:07, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the boat is MV Golden Jubilee and I have moved the article to that title per the usual naming standard for ships.) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:24, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: A search for the ship under its current name turns up what appear to be only two sources that aren't either tourist-guide entries or primary sources: [1] and [2]. Although this barely squeaks over the "100 feet/100 tons" is-usually-notable thingamajigger, that's not an actual standard; however, a search for the ship under its previous name, Lesisure Scene, turned up this, which may be barely enough to squeak it over the line, as it's substantial coverage in a reliable source, which combined with the Lloyd's entry passes the 'two sources' standard as well. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:29, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not convinced that the sources given - even including the Ship & Boat International publication - count as "substantial coverage" for GNG. GraemeLeggett (talk) 05:12, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:54, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the extra sources found by Bushranger do not, IMHO, amount to enough coverage to pass the "significant coverage" threshold at WP:GNG. --Jayron32 02:56, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable boat. I don't see the notability from the two above sources. SL93 (talk) 21:48, 28 June 2013 (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.