Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Majestic International 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Sam Sailor Talk! 00:30, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Majestic International Cruises

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Declined speedy on the grounds that the article is well-sourced, but unless ships are inherently notable I neither see anyting remarkable about this one nor do I think that the references establish notability, just routine commercial coverage. TheLongTone (talk) 16:28, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Keep; The cruise liner is notable. The ships have nothing to do with the notability of the cruise line that owns them, it matters if the cruise line is notable. Sources have been established by a pass of the WP:A7 as the speedy was deleted by since the article has a good amount of sources, which help it be notable. Besides the nomination for deletion was marked up too quickly as I have not been able to proceed with further advancements like I've stated on my talk page.  A dog 104  Talk to me 19:49, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 20:40, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 20:40, 10 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep as the current article seems to have potential and may be better improved later. SwisterTwister   talk  06:41, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment for User:Adog104 -- the problem is with the sources you are using on the article. Some are mere mentions of the company, none are in depth, and none are truly independent. You lean heavily on the web site of the company itself, which is definitely not ok in an article about a company. You need to find other sources like newspaper or magazine articles, at least. Also, the fleet is not what will make the company notable. That's like listing the addresses of all of a company's offices -- it's a fact, but not a wp:corp notable fact. LaMona (talk) 16:38, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Not all sources are from the companies website, and I have found other sources that have not been inserted into the article yet. I have not gotten around to it because of other projects such as November Asian Month and Debated topics on Wikipedia (i.e Talk:Liberland), but since nomination I'm hoping to update before consensus. Besides I can name other cruise line articles with less content/sources than Majestic Cruises does, rightly so this is an unjust delete nominee. And yes I know about the fleet problem, its a place holder too add further information later. However, cruise liners on Wikipedia also use fleet in their history if that's what you're both inferring, so fleet can be notable, but should not be all of what makes the company.  A dog 104  Talk to me 22:03, 12 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete as per my comments above and that I did not find suitable sources in my searches. LaMona (talk) 16:38, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks User:Adog104, the article looks much better now. I still think that the sources are a bit weak since they're mostly "insider" publications from the cruise industry, but I trust you'll continue to work on the article as other info comes in. Great job. Keep LaMona (talk) 03:56, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * No problem and thank you . Also as I've been through other AFD's, its come to attention that since its a Greek company based in Greece I'm more likely not going to find most or all sources relating to the article since its from a complete different region.
 * More information has been added at this time. Please re-consider since the nomination was early in the articles creation.  A dog 104  Talk to me 04:01, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep. "Notable" and "remarkable" are simply not synonymous, and there are many "unremarkable" subjects which receive sufficient coverage to satisfy the GNG. The premise advanced by the nominator is simply wrong. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 14:36, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:34, 18 November 2015 (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.