Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HarbourLynx

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. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:41, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

HarbourLynx

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

This is ridiculous. I don't see the notability for this ferry service. It only operated one vessel on one route for only three years and it is now defunct. While I do know what happened to it (I live near Nanaimo), I still don't think it needs it's own article especially since there are also no sources or external links in the article for verification. The Royal Sealink Express has no article and it was just as minor as this service. I searched for a place the article could possibly be merged (or redirected) to and all I can find a mentioning of it is on the Waterfront Station page. This article is not needed. trainfan01 6:53, July 29, 2010 (UTC)

Keep - A ferry is a public facility, like a major road or a bridge. The fact that this ferry is now non-existent makes this piece more of a historical document and less of an ad, and there is nothing wrong with that. Certainly it needs footnotes, but the cure for that isn't deletion. Carrite (talk) 14:50, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WHat kind of footnotes are you suggesting, fervent inclusionist? Oh wait, there freaking are none. No notability asserted, no sources existing. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 14:54, 29 July 2010 (UTC) Keep per sources found. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 18:21, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the AFD page did exist, but the nominator also hardcoded it into the log by mistake. Carrite's !vote was also hardcoded into the log, and I moved it here. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 14:57, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:1. Hardcoding was some sort of software glitch. This is not on me, I used the regular EDIT button.

2. This inappropriate and rude message left for me on my Talk Page:

And just where do you suggest we get "footnotes" for this article? There isn't a single reliable source about it anywhere. Burden of proof's on you, chummer. Don't say "keep but source" unless you can prove that sources exist. Otherwise we just get a bunch of "keep but sources" and no one ever gets arsed to see if there actually are sources or not. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 14:56, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

3. Articles are NOT to be deleted if they are appropriate and can be fixed by other means. I have no "burden of proof" to meet, I have only an opinion to offer, and it is not on me to do work for others. I write about what I want to write about. We should all do the same. Carrite (talk) 15:08, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Lacks ghits and gnews of substance to establish notability. ttonyb (talk) 15:27, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The ferry service, though short-lived, did get noted by the press from before service started through to its ultimate demise including law suits and attempts to reuse the ferry for a new service. -- Whpq (talk) 19:52, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Sealink Express likely got those same events as well (although I was not around when it existed) and it has no article at all. Therefore it may not help at all on this. trainfan01 6:19, August 2, 2010 (UTC)
- Reply - The fact that Royal Sealink has no article is not really relevant. Articles don't exist until they get created, and their lack of existence doesn't meant that the subject is non-notable. It just means that nobody has bothered to write an article about it yet. -- Whpq (talk) 13:35, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- a simple Google News Archive search turns up multiple articles that can be used as reliable sources for an article on this ferry. They clearly establish notability per our guidelines. Our guidelines represent the broader community's consensus on what should be included in Wikipedia. If we don't like the notability guideline then we can work to change it; until then, we should keep this article. As for the absence of a Royal Sealink article, there are multiple sources to support an article for it as well.^[1] --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:40, 5 August 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.