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. MBisanz ^talk 18:09, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kaalbye Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Company only notable for association with hijacked ship MV Faina, appeared in initial press reports though further reports are showing Tomex Team, not Kaalbye, as owner Switzpaw (talk) 05:47, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. —Switzpaw (talk) 05:48, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The company is probably notable, but some shipping industry publications which might cover it are not available online. As for the ownership question, many commercial ships are owned by one company and operated and managed by another, and their crew may be employed by an entirely different company. -- Eastmain (talk) 06:19, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With respect to operatorship, I think there is a possibility that the Western press initially got this wrong. Attempts to confirm that Kaalbye is the operating firm of the ship have been unsuccessful. The operating firm that has been in communication with the hijackers is Tomex Team, and the owning company is something different altogether (Waterlux AG). Given the lack of coverage of this company in reliable sources, it would be bad to keep possibly false information about this company on Wikipedia for all of eternity -- and it's unlikely this article will receive much maintenance since it was clearly created in response to a recent news event. Switzpaw (talk) 15:17, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Only notable for one news event. Really doesn't seem to be a notable company otherwise. --neon white talk 12:35, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - notable company. Cyrillic sources are hard to work out, of course, but subject to substantial third party coverage, even in English. Neon white's argument on why we should not follow the usual notability standards is unconvincing. WilyD 14:31, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didnt say anything about not following the usual notability standards. Misrepresenting other editors comments is incivil. In fact policy says it needs significant coverage in reliable sources and as yet we do not have such and there have been no evidence of such existing. --neon white talk 02:02, 5 November 2008 (UTC

It has significant coverage in reliable sources. Deletion based on notability grounds requires making an exception to the usual standards, since by the usual standards this would be kept. Discussing arguments is inherently the behaviour mandated by civil. I'm sorry if you're upset that this company is notable and that the arguments proposed for deleting it are so weak, but I can't (or won't?) help with that. WilyD 16:14, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - notable company [1]. --Tavrian 16:58, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep notable, and references found easily enough, just through google i expect people do do this before bringing it here. I would also expect them to have at least looked at the company's home page, in english cited in the article, from which they would have discovered it manages over a dozen ships, which is large enough to be notable in the field, and not assert oneevent. they/'d be notable without it. How long will it be before we require a search before nominating for non-notability? DGG (talk) 00:16, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then where are they? You cannot simply speculate that they may exist, you must show them here. Slef published sources are not relevant to notability and neither is the amount of ships a company owns. --neon white talk 02:02, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DGG, I've probably read far more about this issue than you, so please drop the pedantry. I've also read WP:CORP -- the fact that we can verify the company exists is not the threshold for inclusion. And as I've mentioned above, I think its mention in secondary sources regarding the MV Faina is scant and somewhat dubious. Switzpaw (talk) 16:07, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:29, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Coverage owing to one criminal incident does not meet WP:CORP. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:52, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

that can be handled easily enough by expanding the article. The company itself is notable, even if the incident had never happened at all. DGG (talk) 17:24, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd think the only way to show that would be to cite reliable sources in the article which show coverage having nothing to do with the incident. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:52, 9 November 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.