Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MS Sea Wind

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 WP:SNOW keep. (non-admin closure) Anarchyte (work | talk) 12:05, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

MS Sea Wind[edit]

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

A non-notable cargo ship. Earlier PROD removed by author. No assertion of any notability or even significance. No references. No reason to be on Wikipedia. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 19:50, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:20, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:21, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:07, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A look at the ship's article on the Finnish Wikipedia reveals quite a bit of content that could be translated into English, as well plenty of valid, reliable sources, although most of them seem to focus on one event in the history of the vessel. This extensive document from the Swedish Accident Investigation Board details a fire aboard the ship in 2008 that forced the evacuation of passengers by helicopter, an event that appears to have been widely covered in Finnish and Swedish news (and in English, to a lesser extent; a quick glance shows articles in USA Today, The London Evening Standard, and others). I wouldn't suggest that such a minor incident is enough to confer notability by itself, but the vessel has been in service for 45 years under several different names, and was the SeaWind Line's first (and last) ship. I consider it very likely that the ship has received other coverage in non-English sources over the decades, though I can't immediately prove it, so I'll be withholding a keep vote until someone else can. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:15, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per above. Also, WP:SHIPS convention has been that all ships over 100 tons/100 ft long, particularly those that do not belong to any vessel class, are notable. The article of course requires improvement (infobox etc.). Tupsumato (talk) 13:24, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Tupsumato: I'm working on it! Mjroots (talk) 15:23, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, in accordance with policy mentioned above. Kablammo (talk) 16:19, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I've bashed the article into something resembling a shape and think that GNG is now met. Mjroots (talk) 16:32, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per the above comments. Great work improving the article, Mjroots. Parsecboy (talk) 17:16, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article has been vastly improved. Exemplo347 (talk) 17:17, 24 April 2017 (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.