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. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:16, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

CCGS Ann Harvey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Subject of article does not appear to be notable. There are no references independent of the subject. Op47 (talk) 20:50, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:07, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:07, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:07, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Here is independent coverage of this Canadian Coast Guard ship. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:28, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There is long-standing precedent that commissioned vessels of military and coast guard forces are notable. Also, there is (as noted) coverage available; the nominator is reminded that there is no requirement, outside of BLP subjects, that references be included in an article, only that they exist. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:54, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep She's working, so the old girl has her notability. 'nough said. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:22, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This ship will have been covered in all of the annual editions of Jane's Fighting Ships since 1987, as well as the semi-regular US Naval Institute guide to world navies, so the claim that there are no independent references available is not correct, and suggests a failure to actually look for such references before nominating the article for deletion. Nick-D (talk) 07:50, 18 December 2013 (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.