Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RX II

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) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 13:29, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RX II

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

Unreferenced article, appears to fail the notability guidelines. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 07:21, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:42, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Article is about a Norwegian yacht that sails around the Arctic. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:42, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The expedition was covered at least once by the
Norwegian Broadcasting Corporation and Aftenposten (video and article entirely about it), in addition to a local TV channel in Norway, was heavily covered by one Norwegian sailing magazine (there's a sub-site including a complete blog of the expedition in Norwegian and a blog in English that stops at the end of the first season) and the subject of at least one article in another Norwegian sailing mag and an English-language sailing mag. I've rewritten the article and added references. There is likely some additional info about the RX II herself - one article calls her "famous" - which I haven't yet found (things like Mazda cars cause search interference and the Norwegian search engine Kvasir seems to have tweaked its time period definition controls to make things harder for technical fumblers like me) - but there was definitely enough coverage of the expedition in reliable sources to satisfy the general notability criterion and I can't think of a better title for the article. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:40, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep per GNG. Kudos to Yngvadottir for providing the references.
Haus^Talk 22:48, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,

talk | contribs) 02:52, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep - Article is now well-referenced with verifiable notability, a far cry from how it was when it was nominated. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:53, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep' - the issue raised in the nominantion has been addressed. References provided show that it meets
WP:GNG. Mjroots (talk) 06:03, 20 January 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.