Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AFerry
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
— User:Barney, 11:05, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
Stance: comment
Cited policy: WP:CORPDEPTH (Wikipedia:Notability)