Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MS Southward

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. Overall consensus is to Keep (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 18:01, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MS Southward[edit]

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

Article's subject's notability claim does not appear to be supported by any independent, reliable, verifiable evidence. Links to weblogs are not considered reliable sources. Failing the appearance of sources to prove that this vessel meets the requirements of WP:GNG, I propose that the article on it be deleted. KDS4444^Talk 05:01, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:21, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Of course she's notable; she was a cruise ship carrying over 1,100 people. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:48, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That looks like an assertion of notability without any corresponding evidence of it. Did she sink with a thousand people on board? Where are the multiple, reliable, independent, non-trivial mentions of her? I don't think she can be considered notable merely by virtue of having existed. KDS4444^Talk 16:50, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes notability is dictated by common sense rather than tedious dogma. This is one of those times. Any ship of this size is obviously going to be notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 21:45, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - nominator seems not to have followed WP:BEFORE. Sources are available at several websites. Of course a ship of this size will be capable of meeting WP:GNG. An article needing improvement is not an article that needs to be deleted. Mjroots (talk) 19:02, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator has looked at these sources: they are all links to web sites that show that the vessel existed, not that it was the subject of any news coverage or was at all notable. A vote to "keep" should be based on having found evidence of notability, not evidence of mere existence. Also, nominator is not moved by arguments that begin with "of course". "Of course", like "obviously" and "it's common sense", presupposes knowledge without asking for evidence. Nominator is asking for evidence. KDS4444^Talk 22:50, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, luckily whether or not you're "moved" by arguments is completely irrelevant to the outcome of the discussion! -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:14, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FYI - WP:SHIPS/AFD. The presumption that most ships are capable of reaching WP:GNG is well supported. Mjroots (talk) 16:41, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Presumption, great. Evidence? I am still waiting on it. And it looks like I am not going to get it. KDS4444^Talk 05:25, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Nominator seems not to have done five minute Google either. A number of cites, including court case, ROJAS v. KLOSTER CRUISE, A/S that is cited in other cases, concerning application of Jones Act, are available. Ship actually with Kloster, parent of Norwegian Cruise Line, sold for $24 million to help bail out company, etc, etc. Indications of somewhat typical late life ship issues such as arrest in Israel as Venus for non payment of wages. Palmeira (talk) 20:33, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator has reviewed the first court case mentioned— in it, the name of the ship does appear, but only as a trivial mention. The lawsuit is not about the ship, it is about the Chilean national who was injured aboard her. This does not make the ship notable. The rest of the English in the above "keep" vote is broken and the nominator isn't sure what to make of it. Still awaiting evidence of non-trivial, reliable, independent sources that discuss this vessel and demonstrate its real-world notability. A prima facie claim of notability is a rebuttable presumption. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KDS4444 (talk • contribs) 23:01, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: A 16,000-ton ship with a 40-something year career? I'd be looking for evidence from the nominator that it isn't notable (in itself a rebuttable presumption) before I'd accept the deletion of this article. WP:DEADHORSE Shem (talk) 00:53, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(You can't find evidence of the non-existence of a thing— that is oxymoronic. KDS4444^Talk 05:22, 8 August 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Keep -- Scrapping a ship with long service does not remove its notability. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:48, 8 August 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.