Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Windeward Bound


 * 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The result was Keep - Nom withdrawn. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gary King (talk • contribs) 19:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Windeward Bound

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Does not seem to be a notable ship. Gary King (talk) 06:36, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - gets over 3000 hits on Google. Has been used for recreating Matthew Flinders epic journey.  Is a tall ship (pretty darn rare these days) and seems to have enough references from standard sources to make it notable. Gillyweed (talk) 07:07, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment wonder how hard the nominator is bothering to look for sources for the thirty-two articles he's nominated for deletion so far today. AfD already has nearly twice as many nominations as it would usually have by this time of day and there's still 16 hours left in the UTC day. There is no deadline for getting bad articles deleted, and overwhelming the capacity of people who watch AfD just means that potentially good topics are going to get deleted in the rush. cab (talk) 07:31, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * keep all ships are notable, by long established practice here. There are always sources. DGG (talk) 09:23, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Sorry, I do not mean to inundate the kind people who look over AfDs (I have been heavily patrolling the Recent Changes page lately, though, and have therefore come across quite a lot of articles that I would consider are deserving of a deletion), and I would also argue that the majority of the articles that I have reported are indeed unnotable and therefore worthy of a deletion. Of the few that will be kept, my response is that I am getting used to how the AfD process works and would like to be given a chance to continue to proceed forward in this important department of the Wikipedia project. Thank you kindly. Gary King (talk) 08:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Gary, I think you are probably right for many of them, but the nominations are more effective if you give some more specific reason, and include a statement of where you looked to find sources for notabilty but did not succeed. You may even find in doing it that you can improve some of the articles, and dont have to nominate them.--I know I would never be able to do anywhere near this number with adequate care. Better to do a few a day, and make sure they arent notable first, and show it to us clearly. DGG (talk) 09:34, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. Notable per sources and standards. &mdash;Moondyne 15:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.   —&mdash;Moondyne 15:12, 19 February 2008 (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.