- 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.
Delete as unsourced spam. Even if notability can be established the article would have to be rewritten from scratch. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:36, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn vessel, and possible WP:COATRACK to enable the author to continue attempts to promote his company Mayalld (talk) 16:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete a 100+ year old ship certainly could be notable, but (sadly) I could find no independent coverage to establish notability. Maralia (talk) 18:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete (per WP:N) unless independent, reliable sources demonstrating notability can be produced. They are currently lacking and a preliminary search does not turn any up. MastCell Talk 20:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete; having messed around in boats in the past, I'm afraid that they are rarely notable in and of themselves; with no sources and with the author a suspected puppet/master introducing spam links and advertising for Thames Steam Packet Boat Company trips, I don't feel Wikipedia will be less of an encyclopedia without this article. ➔ REDVEЯS says: at the third stroke the time will be 22:20, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment In the past I think we have consistently regarded all ships to be notable, for the usual reason that there is always information available. But this particular article seems to be borderline spam. DGG (talk) 20:03, 4 January 2008 (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.