Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lüftner Cruises


 * 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 No consensus. We're two weeks on from 's original closure, and I don't see that very much has changed since then. The !votes are roughly split, with a slight majority of keeps, which means the "delete" !votes need to make a correspondingly strong case to overcome those numbers. The debate seems to hinge on the quality of sources under consideration, with it being suggested that those provided might satisfy a simple reading of GNG, but don't satisfy the supplementary guidance on sourcing given by WP:NCORP. That may be a valid argument, but the keep !votes also had a valid argument that GNG was satisfied, in that they felt that the sourcing was good enough. And it was not shown that the NCORP guideline can unilaterally override GNG in this way. As such, with equal and opposite arguments, it's a fairly clear no consensus, as indeed Extraordinary Writ and had previously determined.. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 18:27, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Lüftner Cruises

 * – ( View AfD View log )

PROD declined. Fails WP:ORGCRIT and pure WP:PROMO. Article created by a public relations firm; all sourcing is PR-related. WP:BEFORE shows no independent reliable sourcing coverage. Goldsztajn (talk) 21:56, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Goldsztajn (talk) 21:56, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Goldsztajn (talk) 21:56, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. Goldsztajn (talk) 21:56, 31 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep. Despite the suspicious origins of the article, I think notability has been established. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:35, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete — Per 's rationale. @ i can see how this may appear difficult but let me try and analyze this, you see, pertaining organizations, WP:ORGDEPTH must be present, that is significant coverage must be met. Furthermore per WP:ORGIND sources with a vested interest in the organization can not be considered reliable. When armed with this information the subject of our discussion falls below the notability threshold for organizations. Celestina007 (talk) 22:59, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete: This article created by an SPA account, so COI and WP:PROMO. As per nom, references are all PR-related. This article - and references - are an advertisement. --Whiteguru (talk) 23:03, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. A cruise line that operates sixteen vessels would seem to be notable by any definition of common sense. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:36, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:36, 2 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep. I've added additional sources, and agree with and . Passes WP:GNG. NemesisAT (talk) 15:35, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment I've added this source to the article which seems to have ORGCRIT compliant SIGCOV (although, not very strong):
 * I have no strong opinions on company notability. Jumpytoo Talk 16:56, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I have no strong opinions on company notability. Jumpytoo Talk 16:56, 2 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep per BASIC and ORGCRIT
 * added Djflem (talk) 20:14, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

– Davey 2010 Talk 21:35, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep per everyone above and per the following sources (The Travel Weekly ones seem a tad promotional however IMHO there's enough here and more online to establish notability.)
 * Comment There's not a single reference here which passes assessment with flying colours for independent, in-depth coverage. Private, for-profit companies need to satisfy WP:ORGCRIT precisely because of the ways in which public relations and churalism works.
 * Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 05:38, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Well obviously I entirely disagree with your analysis here and personally bar TravelWeekly I believe these do meet GNG but I guess we'll agree to disagree on this, Thanks. – Davey 2010 Talk 20:31, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Well obviously I entirely disagree with your analysis here and personally bar TravelWeekly I believe these do meet GNG but I guess we'll agree to disagree on this, Thanks. – Davey 2010 Talk 20:31, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment. Travel Weekly is not a "travel industry promotion website". It is a reliable source directed to travel industry professionals rather than consumers. Its website says: "Travel Weekly and TravelWeekly.com are the most influential B2B news resources for the travel industry." Seatrade Cruise News is also aimed at travel professionals rather than consumers. The New York Times blogs are also a reliable source, as they are described as "Travel news, deals and tips, written by the editors and reporters of the Travel section." Trade publications have to provide reliable information to their readers; if they don't, they would lose their audience. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:12, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Travel Weekly reprints press releases verbatim; that's about as clear an example of an unreliable source as one could find. Blogs of newspapers, especially a newspaper of record, operate at lower standards; the NYT piece is clearly linked to promotional purposes. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 05:24, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:01, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep The sourcing seems fine and note that there's a corresponding article in German too. Applicable policies include WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:33, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete None of the Keep !voters have based their arguments on the correct guideline, WP:NCORP, which has a stricter interpretation of requirements for establishing notability than vanilla GNG. WP:BASIC is not appropriate here and neither WP:ATD nor WP:PRESERVE make sense unless the !voter suggests an alternative to deletion. !votes which rely on reasons such as "sourcing seem fine", "passes GNG", "I think notabilty has been established" and "A cruise line that operates sixteen vessels would seem to be notable by any definition of common sense" should be discounted. 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. That means, nothing that relies on company information or announcements or interviews, etc. None of the references in the article meet the criteria as per the breakdown above. They are either standard business listings or short articles based on an "announcement" by the company - all of the articles I can find are within the company's echo chamber and I have been unable to find any "Independent Content" as per ORGIND. Topic fails WP:NCORP.  HighKing++ 10:49, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Note to closer: I non-administratively closed this AfD as "no consensus", but I vacated that closure after a challenge on my talk page. The AfD may be reclosed at any time by any uninvolved administrator. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:55, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I challenged the close on the basis of what I pointed out in my Delete !vote above. Most of the Keep !votes don't bother referring to any guideline or fail to address the issue of sources that meet NCORP criteria for establishing notability as highlighted by and me. My Delete !vote above was not responded to and no references have been provided that meet NCORP.  HighKing++ 18:03, 18 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment — I agree with . AFD's are about brilliant minds well versed in our WP:PAG and “arguing” brilliantly with policy. @ your keep !vote literally states “”. I don’t mean to offend you but I believe that falls under WP:ATA, lets start with this “” please can you show how WP:SIRS is met, or rather can you explain how it applies and is satisfied? secondly “” please what policy expressly states that if an article exits in another language it is auto notable on the English Wikipedia? Lastly “” ATD literally states “” how do you propose we improve an article on a non notable entity? Celestina007 (talk) 18:55, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * German is the native language for this topic and so one should naturally look there first. The German Wikipedia runs a tight ship and so existence there is telling.  And policies are stronger than  guidelines – that's the point of the distinction. Andrew🐉(talk) 20:50, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * DYK that the German language Wikipedia has its own set of policies and guidelines, completely separate and different that the English language wikipedia? So when you say the German language Wikipedia "runs a tight ship", how can we interpret that? What does that even mean? The German language Wikipedia doesn't have the equivalence of WP:NCORP. They methods used between each project differ, sometimes substantially. Your statements "German is the native language for this topic" and "existence there is telling" are entirely meaningless at the English language Wikipedia.  HighKing++ 10:25, 19 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment. I don't think a WP:SNG like WP:NCORP can present a higher threshold for notability than WP:GNG, only a lower threshold. If a topic meets GNG than it is assumed to be notable, whatever some SNG might say. This does. The original close was entirely correct and should not have been challenged. There clearly was no consensus, which defaults to keep. I get rather tired of these calls to "ignore all the !votes that don't agree with what I say because I'm clearly right and they're clearly wrong"! It's patronising, condescending and against the spirit of Wikipedia. Just accept that, unless factually incorrect, what others say is as valid as what you say. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:36, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * You may have missed this RFP earlier this year (archived) which resulted in changes to WP:SNG (which is policy, not a mere guideline) and which says SNGs can also provide examples of sources and types of coverage considered significant for the purposes of determining notability, such as the treatment of book reviews for our literature guidelines and the strict significant coverage requirements spelled out in the SNG for organizations and companies.
 * I understand why it might seem like my harping on about NCORP is an attempt to remove !votes I don't like (although I'm not a big fan of how you expressed it), but the reality is that NCORP is in fact the appropriate guideline and that it is deliberately stricter in its interpretation of references that may be used to establish notability. Other people point out that topics are deemed notable if they meet *either* GNG or an SNG (since many SNGs remove requirements), but NCORP doesn't add or remove any requirements from GNG, merely provides clarification and examples on sources that meet the criteria for establishing notability for organizations. For example, the definition of "Independent" is often glossed over when examining sources for topic areas but not here. So when an AfD on a company/organization is filled with discussions where editors are pointing to GNG and not to NCORP and especially in circumstances where it has been pointed out with specific reference to the sources and NCORP guidelines why those sources fail our criteria, then I am pointing out something which it "factually incorrect" as you put it. It is of course entirely up to the closing admin to weigh those arguments correctly and to understand which arguments are based on the appropriate guideline.  HighKing++ 17:28, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Guidelines are, by definition, not hard rules and even our policies are not strict per WP:BURO, WP:IAR and WP:NOTLAW. So, in discussions of this sort, it's the merits of the individual case which matter most.  And this topic seems fine – a cruise line which owns a fleet of ships is quite reasonable as a topic because individual ships tend to be notable.  HighKing is just trying to WP:BLUDGEON this per WP:STEAM and I agree with Necrothesp that this is vexatious. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:06, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah, the last bastion of argument, lets pick one part of a guideline or even a completely irrelevant one and when that doesn't stick, IAR. And keep repeating that this article is fine regardless of our policies and guidelines, and anybody who calls this out is BLUDGEONing the process. Seriously - all we're looking for is a reference (actually two) that meets NCORP and one that you're happy to defend. I mean WP:DELAFD policy says These processes are not decided through a head count, so participants are each encouraged to explain their opinion and refer to policy.  HighKing++ 20:22, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Not sure where you're getting that WP:SNG is a policy, when it's merely a section of WP:N, which is a guideline! So, no, it clearly isn't any sort of policy. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:09, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * You are correct, I've struck that bit. For some reason I thought WP:N was policy. <b style="font-family: Courier; color: darkgreen;"> HighKing</b>++ 09:37, 20 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment I would happily withdraw this nomination if it could be demonstrated that there was independent, in-depth coverage of this company. Despite a river full (pardon the pun) of sourcing being added to the article, I struggle to see any source  which is not obviously advertorial/PR/churnalism or directory listings. If editors who support keep can point to pieces they regard as not being of that nature, it would hopefully move this discussion forward.  Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 12:32, 20 August 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.