Deletion of AFerry

Comment: do we consider the World Travel Awards to be major awards? I am leaning towards no, as I can find no significant coverage, and they don't have a Wikipedia page. Having reviewed the sources a third time, and trying to put aside the editor's COI and my preference for not |biting the newcomers, this is all I'm holding on to to demonstrate notability. '''Weak delete''' because I'm sensing  in the forecast
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers (WP:BITE||WP:SNOW)

Comment: Because there are other similar companies without wiki articles that perhaps should have them is no reason to delete. There will always be numerous individuals, companies etc. who don't have Wiki articles. Because there is no article about x, means that there should be no article about y? Sorry, this argument is illogical and more importantly not supported by Wikipedia. What's more your objections seem based on your own personal opinions of the workings of Wikipedia (COIs not being allowed to have entries etc.) rather than any valid arguments. You make these opinions very clear on your user page. You are using your objection here as a soap-box for your opinions and not actually carrying out your duty to give an informed decision based on the established criteria for deletion. AFerry is mentioned, once or multiple times, in almost every single UK national newspaper website - in fact you'd be hard pressed to ''not'' find a mention. Furthermore it is mentioned in books by almost every single English language  guide book brand. It is a very notable company and my COI has not hindered in making this article neutral. Furthermore, as you admit there is in-depth coverage. And as stated previously, what is more the non in-depth coverage can also support notability as shown in  ''"If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability."'' A small reference e.g. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/cruises/10091887/How-to-see-the-Mediterranean-by-ferry.html (in this case a small paragraph) does not necessarily make it incidental.  This article was also created via articles for creation as you allude to and this should be taken into consideration. It should also be pointed out that
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CORPDEPTH)

Comment: how is that no 
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS)

Comment: WP:COI|COI is no reason to automatically |nuke a page, and it seems that {{ul|GoldenClockCar}} has been diligent about following process, declaring COI, and seeking consensus & review on edits to his employer's article. The article does a good job of reflecting |neutrality and is very well sourced. We seem to have established here that the business is notable and worthy of its own page. If there was an issue with COI on the page, that would be an issue to be cleaned up by neutral editors, not burned to the ground just to build it up from scratch again.  {{ul|GoldenClockCar}}, you ''should'' post suggested changes on the article's talk page, and refrain from editing the article directly. Wikipedia policy does not ''forbid'' it, but you can see from the discussion going on here that the community frowns upon it, as there have been many instances of editors with a skewed POV advocating their positions in opposition of the community and causing all sorts of problems. |Not that I'm saying you have. Look through the history of Falun Gong and the many, many, many disputes referring to that article if you want a primer. (Not recommended
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over (WP:NUKEANDPAVE||WP:NPOV||WP:GOODFAITH)