Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brazos Belle

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. Clearly a borderline case in terms of notability, but there's no consensus that it fails to meet the notability requirements.  Sandstein  18:18, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brazos Belle

Brazos Belle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

I don't believe this article meets the

• Weak keep - while it may not be notable as a restauraunt, it might well be notable as a riverboat - local sources should be consulted, I'll see if I can dig up anything and perhaps our Texan Wikipedians can help? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:53, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:53, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:53, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:53, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:55, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:03, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This is well referenced for a stub article like this, and might have some signifigant notability as a riverboat. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 03:26, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - All coverage for this business seems to be hyper-local. Indeed, it only seems to be covered at all because it was damaged by a flood; there's no greater extent of coverage evident. Yes, it may potentially be significant as a riverboat, sure. But we can't just go and assume that, especially without an inkling of a reason.--Yaksar (let's chat) 04:09, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: "Might have some signifigant notability as a riverboat?" Let me quote from the GNG, for those unclear on the guidelines: "No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists: The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere short-term interest, nor a result of promotional activity or indiscriminate publicity ..." Neither WP:V, WP:N or any other such policy or guideline operates off of wishful thinking. Either reliable, independent sources discuss a subject in significant detail, and such sources not only can be, but are produced, or they are not. Ravenswing 16:51, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep: Bushranger's references sold me; they are over a couple of years, taking ONEEVENT out of play, and they're from Waco and Dallas and Houston, thus drawing from more than the one metro area. I'd say that satisfies the GNG. Ravenswing 19:56, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, weak local coverage that is ultimately about the flooding event and not about the riverboat per se. Ultimately this appears to be just an example of a business affected by the flooding event, and I find nothing that shows notability as a restaurant or as a riverboat before said event. --Kinu ^t/_c 18:53, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - No notability as a restaurant and the coverage is simply routine local news coverage about the flood. -- Whpq (talk) 15:07, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - The improvements in sourcing are sufficient for this to (barely) clear the notability bar. -- 20:14, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

• Keep - I've added a good number of references, and this appears to be more than just "coverage about the flooding event" - while virtually all coverage was about the flooding and its aftermath, there appears to have been continuing coverage, as well as a small mystery when the boat's owner was unable to be found for a time. (As a note, it appears that very recently, the Brazos Queen II riverboat has been renamed Brazos Belle, confusing things slightly.) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:49, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I analyzed the sources - I disagree that this is significant coverage about the riverboat itself:

• 1 - article primarily about the flooding, Belle an example
• 2 - article is focused on the Belle, but it's about flood damage consequences
• 3 is a university newspaper article about a different riverboat with only 2 sentences on the Brazos Belle (trivial coverage)
• 4 is a school newspaper article about the city asking for the ship to be removed
• 5 - Belle is one of several examples of businesses in trouble be low river levels (trivial coverage)
• 6 - Belle used as an example of businesses that closes (trivial coverage)
• 7 - dead link
• 8 - I don't have access to this, but seems more focused on the owner - is there significant coverage of the boat itself?
• 9 - reprint of 12 - tv stations often post articles from their sister stations even if they don't cover the info
• 10 - 283 words, about flooding
• 11 - 303 words, about flooding
• 12 - 93 words, about flooding

I don't see ANY coverage of the ship or of the business - solely about the flooding and the difficulties in getting the carcass removed (flood consequences). That's a one-time event, and the consequences of that event. So essentially the subject is notable because it partially sunk and was an eyesore? Karanacs (talk) 21:24, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Karanacs' analysis of the sources, this fails
  WP:GNG. Imzadi 1979 → 22:37, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep I think that the coverage added by The Bushranger to the article is sufficient to establish notability. Davewild (talk) 08:19, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, Karanacs' analysis of the sources indicates there is no notability. Neutrality^talk 08:19, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as sources from multiple reliable third-party sources from several different media markets covering the subject in depth over a span of years is sufficient to cross the verifiability and notability thresholds. - Dravecky (talk) 17:24, 25 October 2011 (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.