Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carnival Glory (2nd nomination)

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 Snow Keep only nominator recommends deletion; no delete votes. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:35, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Carnival Glory

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The subject is non-notable. The article consists primarily of advertising. The article was previously deleted after an Afd discussion. Clconway (talk) 16:40, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to muddy this discussion too much, but I should note that all of the above applies equally well to every one of the articles in Category:Ships of Carnival Cruise Lines. In my opinion, all of these articles should be deleted unless the ship is truly noteworthy (e.g., holds a record of some kind, was involved in a newsworthy incident, etc.). Clconway (talk) 16:44, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: A notice has been made to the associated WikiProject at WT:SHIPS#WikiProject notice of AfD discussion per WP:AFD#Notifying interested people. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:59, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep could stand a rewrite to make it less adverty, but the article seems to have decent sources. Its arrival prompted an article in the Orlando Sentinel here and USA today did a story on her refit here. At 110,000 tons displacement, the Carnival Glory is larger than any capitol ship that has ever been built. I dont think it really has to break any records to be considered notable, just covered in reliable sources. Bonewah (talk) 17:53, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, cruise ships and ocean liners are inherently notable, regardless of if they are record-breaking or not. If a ship had to be record-breaking to exist than we would not have articles on such famous ships as RMS Mauretania (1938), RMS Britannic (1929), and RMS Adriatic (1907) (none were the largest or fastest when new). Also, this ship was not the largest when new either or now Bonewah, do I have to remind you of MS Oasis of the Seas at 220,000 GT? The newer ships (such as this one) are heavily covered in reliable print and online media when new. While most of our articles on cruise ships could use a once-through to clean-up the advertising that inevitably tends to seep in (I suspect that the cruise lines are IP editing to do this via marketing and promotional companies), that alone is not a reason to mass delete every article on cruise ships we have. Also, see User:Mjroots arguments in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SS Timothy Bloodworth (2nd nomination): "Ships generally are all notable enough for articles." -MBK₀₀₄ 19:15, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Capitol ship, I.E. combat ships. My point was that Carnival Glory is huge, bigger than any aircraft carrier or battleship, but you are right, not the biggest ship. Bonewah (talk) 19:44, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I would dispute the assertion that "cruise ships and ocean liners are inherently notable" in the absence of a community consensus to the contrary. We don't have articles for every Airbus A380 or for every train the runs the Northeast Corridor line or for every tram at Disneyworld. These articles reek of indiscriminate information. Note that I did not say a ship has to be record-breaking to be WP:NOTABLE—that's just one potential indicator of notability. The ships you cite are notable because they are historically significant and legitimately famous. Carnival has a fleet of dozens of undistinguished ships of no historical significance whatsoever. Clconway (talk) 21:02, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Now that is not true, Carnival Destiny was the first cruise ship to displace over 100,000 tons and also the first modern cruise ship built too large to transit the Panama Canal; Carnival Elation and Carnival Paradise were the first cruise ships to use azipods instead of traditional propellers and shafts, and Paradise was also the first non-smoking ship. Your assertion that Carnival's fleet is undistinguished and of no historical significance is blatantly false. -MBK₀₀₄ 22:09, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Of the three arguments for deletion: subject is notable - coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject do demonstrate notability per WP:N, personal interpretation of what someone thinks should be required to establish notability do not override the established notability guideline; some parts of the article read somewhat advert-like - but that indicates a need for copy editing, not wholesale deletion; and the prior AfD mentioned does not appear relevant - I can't view the prior deleted version of the article, so perhaps an admin can review and confirm, but based on the comments in the 2005 AfD discussion it appears the original version was someone's personal comments on liking the ship and was considerably different from the present cited version of the article. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:51, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Barek, you are completely on-point with the content of the deleted version of this article. They are effectively two completely different articles and the prior AFD should play no part in this since the content is wholly different. -MBK₀₀₄ 22:00, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Of 10 references in the article, 4 are links to Carnival's website, 2 are reviews at travel sites (should we have a separate article for every Day's Inn?), 1 is a link to a Coast Guard database including every licensed vessel in North America, 2 appear to be lightly reworked press releases about Carnival service changes in the trade press, and 1 is a notice from a local paper in the county where some dry dock work was done (this was a big deal for the county but not so much for world history). This does not, IMHO, clear the WP:NOTABLE bar. Clconway (talk) 21:17, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per long-established Wikipedia practice. At least one prior deletion proposal on a Carnival vessel has failed, and at least one prior merger proposal has gone nowhere. Vessels of this size are inherently notable. To combine them all into one article would result in an infobox many entries long, and as many passenger ships have multiple careers, information on them would be spread out over many articles. Hundreds of thousands of passengers go on cruises each year; let's not deprive them of an independent source on their vessel (and perhaps they may even learn that gross tonnage is not the same as displacement, and that a launch date is not the date a ship entered service). Kablammo (talk) 22:12, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - If a subject has received significant coverage by reliable sources as this one has, it passes WP:N. An article looking advertising-like on the subject doesn't magically mean it didn't receive significant coverage by reliable sources. It just means the article should to be improved so it looks neutral.--Oakshade (talk) 00:33, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not seeing a reason to delete. Could do with some cleanup, but thats not grounds for an axe. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:36, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The arguments to delete are wholly unconvincing. 1) Non-notability is disproved by secondary source coverage and a general wiki-wide consensus of the notability of large ships like these. 2) The article being primarily of advertising would require copyediting, not deletion. An article like this would be expected to have detail on relevant specifications and features, just as a warship article would cover details on armour thickness, propulsion, layout of guns, etc. 3) The previous afd is not applicable, bearing in mind that consensus and opinion is always evolving on wikipedia, and especially as the articles may be completely different. Benea (talk) 01:50, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for all the reasons above and requesting a close on this AfD based on wp:snowball. --Brad (talk) 04:28, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above, wow seems to be snowy around here. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:17, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball Keep - the ship is clearly notable. WP:V + WP:RS = WP:N. The previous AfD deletion does not mean that an article about the ship cannot be recreated because a really bad article that failed core policies was deleted (yes, I've had a look, as can other admins). Mjroots (talk) 18:41, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Clearly notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:51, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.