Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Swansea Cork Ferries

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 redirect to Swansea Cork Ferries. (X! · talk) · @278 · 05:40, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Swansea Cork Ferries

Delete no indication of notability, no sources, fails WP:CORP. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:00, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. —FlowerpotmaN·(t) 16:25, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. —FlowerpotmaN·(t) 16:25, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The company itself doesn't seem to be notable itself, but the ferry route may well be historically notable as a form transport link. Can anyone tell me how significant/frequent this service was? Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 17:26, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The route was very significant, certainly at the Swansea end. See Swansea Cork Ferry. Thryduulf (talk) 18:17, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge anything worth merging into Swansea Cork Ferry, if not redirect per comments below. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 10:20, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:43, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:43, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Swansea Cork Ferry, the route is notable but the company is not, and all that needs to be said about them is already said there. Thryduulf (talk) 18:17, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that Swansea-Cork Ferries (note hyphen) currently redirects to Swansea Cork Ferry, and that until this article about the company was started today, so did this title. Thryduulf (talk) 18:21, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a separate article. Out off the 300 or so hits in gnews, the earlier company specifically has several dozen good ones, including among others this major one [1] That a company has gone out of business does not make it non-notable, if it would have been notable while it was operating.DGG (talk) 23:31, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The only notability the company had while it was operating was directly related to running the Swansea-Cork ferry. As such, imo, it should be covered on the article about the ferry route (as it is already). If a person is only notable for one event, we cover them on the article about the event unless it gets split off for being too big or they become notable for something else. Where a company is notable only for one product, we have an article about the product and cover the company there, again unless it needs to be spun out for size reasons. I think we should apply the same standards here. Thryduulf (talk) 00:33, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
M/R into an article on the ferry route where the company can be discussed, using sources that DGG identidied. Not fussed over title. StarM 01:26, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment an article about the ferry route already exists at Swansea Cork Ferry. Thryduulf (talk) 09:42, 5 July 2009 (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.