Deletion of Carnival Glory (2nd nomination)

Comment: per above, wow seems to be |snowy around here
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Snowball clause (WP:SNOW)

Comment: I would dispute the assertion that "cruise ships and ocean liners are inherently notable" in the absence of a community consensus to the contrary. We don't have articles for every Airbus A380 or for every train the runs the Northeast Corridor line or for every tram at Disneyworld. These articles reek of |indiscriminate information. Note that I did ''not'' say a ship has to be record-breaking to be &mdash;that's just one potential indicator of notability. The ships you cite are notable because they are historically significant and legitimately famous. Carnival has a fleet of dozens of undistinguished ships of no historical significance whatsoever
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:INDISCRIMINATE||WP:NOTABLE)

Comment: Of 10 references in the article, 4 are links to Carnival's website, 2 are reviews at travel sites (should we have a separate article for every Day's Inn?), 1 is a link to a Coast Guard database including every licensed vessel in North America, 2 appear to be lightly reworked press releases about Carnival service changes in the trade press, and 1 is a notice from a local paper in the county where some dry dock work was done (this was a big deal for the county but not so much for world history). This does not, IMHO, clear the  bar
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NOTABLE)

Comment: If a subject has received significant coverage by reliable sources as this one has, it passes .  An article looking advertising-like on the subject doesn't magically mean it didn't receive significant coverage by reliable sources.  It just means the article should to be improved so it looks neutral
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: Of the three arguments for deletion: subject is notable - coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject do demonstrate notability per , personal interpretation of what someone thinks should be required to establish notability do not override the established notability guideline; some parts of the article read somewhat advert-like - but that indicates a need for copy editing, not wholesale deletion; and the prior AfD mentioned does not appear relevant - I can't view the prior deleted version of the article, so perhaps an admin can review and confirm, but based on the comments in the 2005 AfD discussion it appears the original version was someone's personal comments on liking the ship and was considerably different from the present cited version of the article
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: the ship is clearly notable.  +  = . The previous AfD deletion does not mean that an article about the ship cannot be recreated because a ''really bad article'' that failed core policies was deleted (yes, I've had a look, as can other admins
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:RS||WP:N)