Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Regency Cruises
Talking about Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Regency Cruises is a topic that arouses the interest of people of all ages and profiles. Whether due to its historical relevance, its impact on current society or its influence in different areas, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Regency Cruises is a topic that deserves to be explored and understood in its entirety. Over the years, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Regency Cruises has been the subject of debate, analysis and study, demonstrating its importance and significance. In this article, we will delve into the fascinating world of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Regency Cruises, exploring its different facets, its evolution over time and its impact on everyday life.
- 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. Liz Read! Talk! 22:56, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Regency Cruises (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Poorly written, promotional content, notability not definitively established. Contested PROD and contested draftifications. Taking Out The Trash (talk) 17:29, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Greece. Shellwood (talk) 18:38, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:51, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
- Keep. Subject meets WP:NCORP. Here are some sources that seem to meet WP:SIRS: . Regarding nom, WP:PRESERVE suggests that the quality writing is not a reason for deletion. —siroχo 00:36, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
- Added 3 sources in article —siroχo 00:48, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
- Keep per siroxo. Agree with nom that the article is quite a mess. -- Visviva (talk) 20:05, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
- Keep. Agree that it both appears to meet WP:NCORP, and that the article's an absolute mess right now. Needs a thorough revision/cleaning, but I don't think that means we delete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kalethan (talk • contribs) 20:46, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
- 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.