Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/European Waterways

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. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:11, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

European Waterways

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

Also including are the related articles La Belle Epoque (barge),L'Art de Vivre, L'Impressionniste that also seem like adverts.

Per WP:CORPDEPTH - company is not subject in any of the 9 refs e.g. "restaurant review". No assertion of notability. Advert. Refs are promo, not asserting encyclopaedic nature Widefox; talk 08:45, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 09:11, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Large fleet. I would have said this was notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:11, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This company may just be notable, but it's ridiculous that there are several Wikipedia articles on their river barges (La Belle Epoque (barge), L'Art de Vivre, L'Impressionniste and many more) - could those be rolled into the AfD? (Also I don't think the size of their fleet is in itself a determiner - Carnival Corporation & plc only has about 13 vessels but is notable as the world's biggest cruise operator, while a guy renting pedalos on a pond may have 30 or 40.) --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:38, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Clearly I meant the size of a fleet of large vessels, not small boats! -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:07, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"large fleet" might be subjective - can you measure that against a WP criterion? Should someone/a business who owns a few houses also have an article, or rents out a few cars? what's notable here? Are there multiple substantial refs per co. notability criterion? yes, agree to rolling all those articles into this AfD, I question their notability too - all seem a bit advert to me. Widefox; talk 17:54, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that there's slightly too many articles on barges but don't believe it should be rolled into this AfD. Separate issue as its more akin to the notability of a train engine rather than a company. It does seem that most of these articles were created by barge enthusiasts rather than a single effort by any company to promote itself. --Patrick (talk) 09:38, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Company is notable, and article has at least 9 references. No reason to delete, article needs to be developed, but so do a lot of articles on WP. --Funandtrvl (talk) 18:58, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

none of those 9 have more than incidental mention of the company (AFAIK) with no single source for the bulk of this article - per WP:CORPDEPTH - I'll mark these to make clear, and I put the Primary criteria at the top here Widefox; talk 08:01, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Company is notable as it has attracted attention from notable sources (Rick Stein primarily). I edited the page a bit to make it read less of an ad, removing some peacock terms and fixing other issues. --Patrick (talk) 09:35, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve - Per the book sources in the article, it appears to meet WP:GNG. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:13, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:04, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all. The operator meets WP:GNG, while the articles on the barges are articles on ships, and long consensus has shown that ships over 100 feet in length or 100 tons in displacement - which all of the listed ships are - are likely to be found notable, which they do, indeed, appear to be. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:40, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all The Bushranger says it better than I can. Ryan Vesey 00:31, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; substantial coverage by a variety of independent sources; it passes the GNG. I would also argue that it's difficult to write a neutral article describing what a business does without somebody thinking it's spam. bobrayner (talk) 21:36, 3 October 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.