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 Nominator withdrew proposal per WP:SNOW

U-8047 Submarine Museum (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)

This is a sort-of CSD G7 nomination. The now-indef-blocked creator of this article attempted to delete it by blanking the page in this and this edit, and also successfully deleted a copy of the article that was resident on his user page. He said that he was going to do so in this vulgar edit on his user talk page. While quite a few other editors have edited the article, virtually all of them (except for a number of recent edits by an editor who has identified himself as the original editor's brother-in-law) have been devoted to trying to turn this piece of vanity spam into an acceptable article. While the boat has, indeed, had a good bit of press coverage, it's only been because of its "wierdness" factor. In terms of real significance, it has virtually none, especially lasting significance, and we ought to accede to the author's request to remove it. TransporterMan (TALK) 18:09, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Yes, weirdness contributed to the mass of press coverage, but let's face it, as far as we know, the stupid boat is still there, in quite a prestige location (next to a genuinely significant war museum!), no-one has yet sunk it and it seems the owner plans to keep it there for quite some time - and indeed the owner may end up bringing yet more newsworthiness to his boat by whatever other shenanighins he gets up to. Notability is clearly established, and only likely to increase. Now, if there were major BLP concerns over the retention of the article (which there were, before!) then I would have a very different view, but with the extensive recent trimmings, those concerns no longer exist. Finally, your G7 proposal does not make sense; you say that the non-COI editors have been trying to turn it into an acceptable article; well, that doesn't change the fact their contributions are significant ones. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:35, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing - the editor in question has had a few very strong outbursts over the last twelve hours or so. I'm not convinced that we can assume that just because he said (and did) something in anger at some point this afternoon, it's necessarily his really serious wish regarding the article. Lots of people reply with the "well just delete it anyway then!" line when things don't go their way - the vast majority of them change their minds very quickly. Not that it's relevant, per my other points above, but worth mentioning I think. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:20, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I don't think the pseudo-G7 really works even if the original author genuinely wants it deleted, because even if the contributions of others have "only" been copy-editing, rewriting, etc, they're still significant. Is it sufficiently notable? It might only be because it's a little eccentric, but I think there are enough third-party sources to satisfy GNG. And I think the current version looks good without violating BLP or anything - I removed one source that referred to a possible BLP issue, but it was sourcing something that had been removed from the article anyway. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:30, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:00, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:01, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. A good faith nomination, but I think the article has been sufficiently edited by others to make a G7 untenable, even if we have reason to think the rather unpredictable main editor genuinely wants it deleted. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 20:04, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep sufficiently referenced by good quality sources RadioFan (talk) 22:54, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as well-known locally, and featuring on numerous local TV reports. Perhaps the attempts to delete are to do with the allegations of fraud, which themselves should perhaps be documented. Tonywalton ^Talk 23:57, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Snowily withdrawn by nominator — TransporterMan (TALK) 00:05, 12 June 2012 (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.