Deletion of Lüftner Cruises

Comment: I've added additional sources, and agree with {{u|Eastmain}} and {{u|Necrothesp}}. Passes 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: The sourcing seems fine and note that there's a corresponding article in German too.  Applicable policies include  and 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Deletion policy (WP:ATD||WP:PRESERVE)

Comment: Per {{u|Goldsztajn}}'s rationale. @{{u|Eastmain}} i can see how this may appear difficult but let me try and analyze this, you see, pertaining organizations,  must be present, that is significant coverage must be met. Furthermore per  sources with a vested interest in the organization can not be considered reliable. When armed with this information the subject of our discussion falls below the notability threshold for organizations
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ORGDEPTH||WP:ORGIND)

Comment: None of the Keep !voters have based their arguments on the correct guideline, , which has a stricter interpretation of requirements for establishing notability than vanilla GNG.  is not appropriate here and neither  nor  make sense unless the !voter suggests an alternative to deletion. !votes which rely on reasons such as "sourcing seem fine", "passes GNG", "I think notabilty has been established" and "A cruise line that operates sixteen vessels would seem to be notable by any definition of common sense" should be discounted.  requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with |in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing |"Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include ''original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject''. That means, nothing that relies on company information or announcements or interviews, etc. None of the references in the article meet the criteria as per the breakdown above. They are either standard business listings or short articles based on an "announcement" by the company - all of the articles I can find are within the company's echo chamber and I have been unable to find any "Independent Content" as per ORGIND. Topic fails 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NCORP||WP:BASIC||WP:ATD||WP:PRESERVE||WP:CORPDEPTH||WP:ORGIND||WP:NCORP)

Comment: I don't think a  like  can present a ''higher'' threshold for notability than , only a ''lower'' threshold. If a topic meets GNG than it is assumed to be notable, whatever some SNG might say. This does. The original close was entirely correct and should not have been challenged. There clearly was no consensus, which defaults to keep. I get rather tired of these calls to "ignore all the !votes that don't agree with what I say because I'm clearly right and they're clearly wrong"! It's patronising, condescending and against the spirit of Wikipedia. Just accept that, unless factually incorrect, what others say is as valid as what you say
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:SNG||WP:NCORP||WP:GNG)

Comment: I |non-administratively closed this AfD as "no consensus", but I vacated that closure after
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Deletion process (WP:NACD)

Comment: There's not a single reference here which passes assessment with flying colours for independent, in-depth coverage.  Private, for-profit companies need to satisfy  precisely because of the ways in which public relations and churalism works
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ORGCRIT)