Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Atlantic 47


 * 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. J04n(talk page) 13:48, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Atlantic 47

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:NOTABILITY. Boleyn (talk) 18:41, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Really, could you describe the process you used? The article explicitly states why it is notable. I wonder if you even read it. It is true that there is not much information, however that doesn't mean it should be deleted. It is always better to expand an article rather than delete it. Why don't you try visiting a library and adding some information if you are so concerned, instead of deleting other people's hard work? prat (talk) 13:27, 23 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. clpo13(talk) 21:41, 22 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment wow,, that's a little uncalled for. Short articles are not an issue. It states why the contributor considered it notable - that's different to it being notable. I can't see that it meets any part of WP:NOTABILITY. If you can, wonderful, please just note here why you think it meets which part of notability, and I'm always happy to withdraw a nomination if it seems my assessment was wrong. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 18:29, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't see how you feel such a comment (requesting positive contribution instead of destruction) is 'uncalled for'. You have effectively created this time-wasting bureaucracy around your suggestion to delete an article, an article someone else took the time to write. If you don't have a clear line of reasoning beyond vague and subjective policy waving on why this is undoubtedly a great idea, or the will to improve the same, then why are you expecting people to thank you profusely for your thankless and selfless act of removing real information from Wikipedia? Do you know what staggeringly destructive effect such acts have on the motivation of contributors? Honestly, I am uncertain from what psychology your sense of deletionist entitlement derives; but though we are supposed to "assume good faith" it is hard to see it as one of sharing, collaboratively building, and assuming good faith. Instead, to me, it appears you are attempting to vindicate your destructive and ill-considered actions through emulated shock and awe "Oh my god this person is talking to me honestly and openly and criticizing my actions from the perspective of motivation, reasoning, and overall communitky/social effect! How uncouth!". Well, what did you expect. Probably just to slide another hard-written article off in to deletion with no complaints. Well I am complaining. This deletion crap is totally out of hand. Anyway, now that we have all wasted our time, can we just leave the article as is please? Perhaps you could consider taking a break from deleting articles on supposed notability grounds for awhile, or permanently? Thanks. prat (talk) 21:46, 23 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment I found a review at 'Cruising World' & added it as an external link in the article. Beyond that it was forum mentions, nothing significant. Gab4gab (talk) 19:58, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. That was infinitely more helpful than the rest of this time-wasting deletion discussion, which from here feels like it's stealing a bunch of people's time under threat of removing real work. Honestly, the next person to read the article who cares can expand it - clearly there is no time pressure. Why add a deletion discussion? This deletion crap is totally out of hand. prat (talk) 21:38, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:59, 28 May 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yellow Dingo (talk) 01:48, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as I also am not finding anything else better and there's certainly no better context. SwisterTwister   talk  06:48, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. A couple of reviews and forum posts do not amount to substantive coverage in reliable sources to satisfy WP:GNG. -- Kinu  t/c 19:42, 12 June 2016 (UTC)


 * 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.