Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MV Nimpkish

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. Merging seems a viable option, but that can be discussed elsewhere. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:12, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MV Nimpkish[edit]

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

No indication that this vessel is Notable. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 04:45, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article does demonstrate at least some notability. Referencing could be much better, but that's no reason to delete. Mjroots (talk) 19:05, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I see zero evidence of notability. Rjensen (talk) 19:24, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is a book by Gary and Patricia Bannerman (bibliography in BC Ferries article) which provides sufficient information to establish notability for the ship. I own a copy, but will not have access to it until at least August. Arsenikk ^(talk) 08:18, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:49, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:49, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As a general rule named ships that are designed to carry passengers are almost always going to be notable. Editors would be well advised to take a deep breath and look carefully BEFORE sending these kinds of articles to AfD. In this case a quick search yielded no shortage of reliable secondary sources dealing with the ship. See (001) (002 (003) (004) (005). Those are just a random sampling from the first page of hits. Conceding that the article needs some work, there is absolutely no doubt that the subject passes GNG. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:43, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to N-class ferry. Same for MV Nicola. The ships are notable: as Ad Orientem notes, ships are big things and they do tend to be. However there is very little to say about these three that I think couldn't be said most clearly in one overall article on the class. It's also 40 years since they were built and so I don't expect the class to gain new members. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:07, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Agree notable, but single article covering all three of the the class is better considering the amount of material available - and more convenient for readers. Davidships (talk) 15:53, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:34, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Swarm ^{we ♥ our hive} 06:01, 31 July 2015 (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.