Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Keiler

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. Nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure) ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 08:16, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keiler

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

non notable icebreaker fails wp:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. Besides we already have the main points on a list article Icebreakers of Germany on en.wiki like de:Liste von Schiffen der Wasser- und Schifffahrtsämter DBig Xray 22:24, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep withdrawing nomination per Bushranger's comment on 30m. I did follow WP:BEFORE prior to AfDing this --DBig Xray 08:11, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails the notability guidelines. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 11:39, 16 June 2012 (UTC)Keep As per The Bushranger. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 08:04, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- List articles supplement individual articles, and vice versa. The existence of a list article is not an argument to preclude the retention of an individual article. The german article the nomination cites, de:Liste von Schiffen der Wasser- und Schifffahrtsämter, does not have room to contain information like that the Keiler was the first new vessel to be supplied to this division of the WSA in 24 years.
One thing one often finds in {{afd}} is when those participating assert the opinion some topic is not worth covering, largely because it is a topic they don't find interesting.
For what it is worth I started both the Keiler article and Icebreakers of Germany. I started the list article afterwards, to supplement the articles on the individual articles.
I started many of the original articles on individual icebreakers, six or seven years ago. After doing so I realized I had contributed to a systematic bias. Back then all the articles on icebreakers were on the very largest icebreakers that displace thousands or tens of thousands of tons. If one only read our articles one would think that ALL icebreakers were big vessels displacing thousands of tons. Smaller riverine and canal based icebreakers, like the Keiler, probably outnumber the big icebreakers. Geo Swan (talk) 20:23, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - N(Vehicles) is a de facto demoted essay; the article (barely) meets WP:GNG; and the nominator's implied claim that articles on individual ships are not needed is contraindicated by broad consensus. Also it's generally accepted, although by no means a standard, that ships of over 100 feet (30 m) length are extremely likely to be notable; did the nominator act as required by WP:BEFORE? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:46, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability requirements have been met. Brad (talk) 02:09, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article is already sourced to show that the topic passes WP:GNG. Note that the word "boar" may appear in Google translations instead of the word "Keiler". Unscintillating (talk) 00:03, 18 June 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.