Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Interlake Maritime Services


 * 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. – bradv 🍁  04:57, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Interlake Maritime Services

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NCORP.  scope_creep Talk  14:05, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:07, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:07, 6 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose. This is a relatively new entity which is the parent to four other entities, two of which have their own articles. If those subsidiaries are notable, then this is also, and the relative lack of sources may be due to the fact it is only a year old.  Kablammo (talk) 19:50, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Interlake Steamship Company appears to easily be notable. The Lake Michigan Carferry Service page was merged into S.S. Badger. Also under this company and their Interlake Logistics Solutions name is SS City of Midland 41 and this division also chartered another ship at least from 2018 to 2019 (source). I can't find much information on the Port Services division.
 * I do feel this article is beneficial as a navigational aid if nothing else, to collect together the operations for this company. NemesisAT (talk) 20:01, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete Sources do not establish that WP:NCORP is met. MrsSnoozyTurtle 21:45, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. Sources are cited. If subsidiaries and ship assets are notable enough for articles then the parent company should have a place. Perhaps those subsidiary company pages should be merged into the new parent company page. Palmeira (talk) 11:30, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Comments Lets look at the sources:
 * Interlake buys a ship. That is a routine annoucement of buying a ship. It doesn't indicate notability. Any ship organisation is going to buy ships. Fails WP:ROUTINE.
 * []. The company has been bought. Fails WP:ROUTINE and WP:SIRS. The whole story is primary.
 * Interlake Holding purchases two Great Lakes vessels. Another routine annoucement of operations. Fails WP:ROUTINE. A shipping company is going to buy two ships.
 * This is a company itself and is primary.
 * So there is 3 references, 3 are routine coverage of company operations, that every shipping company makes and 1 is a reference that is primary. No secondary sources.   scope_creep Talk  11:43, 7 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep Regardless of the level of sourcing on Interlake Maritime Services specifically, the company has been active for a while as Interlake Steamship Company and appears to have recently restructured after taking over the operation of the Lake Michigan Carferry Service. Thus as this is the current name of the overall company I feel this article should be kept. Perhaps Interlake Steamship Company could be merged into this article? Either way, I object to the deletion of the content here because it serves a navigational aid, bringing together the operations of the company. I don't see a suitable place to merge the verifiable content on this article. NemesisAT (talk) 12:03, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Navigational aids and whether they recently restructured has nought to do with Wikipedia or whether the article is notable. The work will get done. You seem to be talking like a paid editor.   scope_creep Talk  12:15, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * More accusations, as if those you made yesterday weren't enough. No, I'm not a paid editor. If you include the actions of its subsidiaries then yes, the company and article is notable. As I said before, a merge of Interlake Steamship Company to here may be appropriate. NemesisAT (talk) 12:19, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that.   scope_creep Talk  12:24, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm concerned that you are deleting cited information during a deletion discussion. The MarineLink works fine for me so I'm also confused as to why you said it was a "dead link" on my talk page. NemesisAT (talk) 12:23, 7 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment has removed content for the third time with another rationale that doesn't make sense. I don't think I can revert it as I'd be in breach of the WP:TRR. NemesisAT (talk) 14:51, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * They are not linked. Their are pieces of text only. There were articles there at some point in the past but removed. You don't leave a name of something if it has no context in Wikipedia.   scope_creep Talk  14:56, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * What policy says that a bullet point must be linked for inclusion in Wikipedia? You removed cited content. NemesisAT (talk) 14:58, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * This discussion about the Subsidiaries section seems unrelated to the AfD, therefore I suggest it is relocated to the article's Talk Page. MrsSnoozyTurtle 21:46, 7 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. As per the analysis of sources above by scope_creep, none of the references in the article meet the criteria. I have been unable to find any references that meet NCORP criteria, topic fails WP:NCORP. Also, NesesisAT's admission above regarding the paucity of sourcing can be interpreted to mean that their Keep !vote is *despite* NCORP requirements for appropriate sourcing to establish notability.  HighKing++ 14:54, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep per . Waddles 🗩 🖉 03:40, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Again, just noting for the closer, NemesisAT hasn't pointed to a single reference that meets the criteria for establishing notability and instead provides nothing more than an opinion that "regardless of the level of sourcing" (which is non-existant) the article should be kept.  HighKing++ 17:53, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Note my argument was also that other articles should perhaps be merged into this one, like Interlake Steamship Company which is notable. For that to happen, this particular discussion should be closed as keep and then merge discussions could take place. NemesisAT (talk) 18:15, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Response Sure, but I'm just highlighting the fact that it makes zero sense to merge other articles into this topic which clearly fails NCORP.  HighKing++ 18:02, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Response Makes no sense right enought, but I knew that anyway.   scope_creep Talk  18:23, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * We have notable operations by the same company, but if this page was deleted, there would be nothing to link them together on Wikipedia. That to me makes no sense and IMO would not benefit our readers. There is also the question of where the small amount of verifiable information on the Logistics Services division would go, I don't think it would belong on Interlake Steamship Company or at SS Badger. NemesisAT (talk) 18:32, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * There's nothing in Wikipedia guidelines or policies to suggest that there should be a "link topic/article" between related entities and we already have articles (as you've acknowledged) on the notable parts of the operation and they already mention this topic company. Your suggestion flies in the fact of our policies on notability as this topic fails the criteria for notability as per NCORP. <b style="font-family: Courier; color: darkgreen;"> HighKing</b>++ 15:27, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep: or merge. - Ret.Prof (talk) 01:46, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. The article definitely fails WP:CORPDEPTH, and normally I would argue for a merge or redirect in this situation. However, in this case there are multiple articles pertinent to this article and there is no easily identified merge target in this case because there are multiple subsidiaries with articles of there own currently within the encyclopedia. As such, there is a reasonable claim for maintaining some sort of page per Navigational page. Readers searching for this company can find content on the notable subsidiaries through such a page.4meter4 (talk) 15:00, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep as a WP:COMMONSENSE retention. If the subsidiaries were merged into this page there would be no argument that the page met GNG.  It does not suddenly lose its notability because material has been split out into separate articles. <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 18:45, 17 December 2021 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.