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 no consensus. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:25, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Asia Cruises

[edit]
Asia Cruises (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Non-notable corporation. A Google search turned up no reliable sources (and not even any unreliable sources) for this company. Brilliant Pebble (talk) 05:01, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That appeared to be an error. Added a couple more references to the article. Gr1st (talk) 20:14, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Sean Whitton / 12:41, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It has received coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, which is WP:N in a nutshell. Gr1st (talk) 17:43, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I didn't make myself clear, apologizes. I'm aware that there are sources. But the sources claim it exists, has ships, has ports and is owned by someone. What it doesn't establish, is what this cruise line is notable for. Its not notable because it exists. I exists, I work for someone, I go from place to place. This doesn't make me notable at all (even if I can locate secondary sources to prove my postulate). Synergy 18:23, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But if you could locate reliable secondary sources to prove your postulate, you would be notable per WP:N, no matter what it is you do. The difference between you and Asia Cruises is that they have been the subject of coverage in reliable secondary sources. Gr1st (talk) 18:27, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Right, but I'd be notable for a reason, not just because I existed. WP:CORP tells me that any of the mentions in the article are in fact trivial at best: The "secondary sources" in the criterion include reliable published works in all forms, such as (for example) newspaper articles, books... except for the following: Works carrying merely trivial coverage; such as (for examples) newspaper articles that simply report meeting times or extended shopping hours, or the publications of telephone numbers, addresses, and directions in business directories. And thats all this does. Again, it reports they exist, are owned, have ships, and dock at specific ports. But no individual act they have done is notable outside of existing. Synergy 18:48, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
None of the sources cited describe the company in terms anywhere near as trivial as meeting times, extended shopping hours, telephone numbers, addresses, etc. WP:GNG defines "significant coverage" as "[sources which] address the subject directly in detail". All Six of the seven news articles cited do just that - they are primarily about the company or the services they provide. None merely state "Asia Cruises exists" and nothing more. It doesn't matter if the sources talk about who owns them, what ships they have, what specific ports they dock at or something entirely different, so long as the coverage is significant (and I believe it is per WP:GNG). Gr1st (talk) 19:13, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I shouldn't have quoted the whole sentence. Those are just examples. I'm more concerned with the such as. The list is not exhaustive but display what other trivial mentions will look like. And as far as I can tell, they show me what I need to see. Synergy 05:51, 26 July 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.
More