MY Titanic : Ironmatic1 ( talk ) 00:08, 13 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions .  Ironmatic1 ( talk ) 00:08, 13 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions .  Hey man im josh ( talk ) 00:57, 13 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as large number of sources cited shows notability.  Godtres ( talk ) 14:54, 13 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Mjroots : who created the article might be able to remedy this.  — Maile ( talk ) Very Strong Keep There are thousands of ship articles without pictures.  Just because someone hasn't released a photograph under a Wikipedia compatible licence does not mean that the ship is not notable.  This has to be the worst reason to nominate an article for deletion ever .  Mjroots ( talk ) 03:40, 13 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] From a first glance, the sources on the article seem to be enough for notability.  I don't see why your difficulty in finding an image of the ship is relevant.  Enervation ( talk ) 07:08, 13 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Very Strong Keep The article is adequately referenced and the vessel is as notable as the string of identical cruise liners that apparently warrant separate individual articles Murgatroyd49 ( talk ) 07:40, 13 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep The deletion rationale is fairly weak here.  The references are adequate and there are several images available online, such as at https://open.library.ubc.ca/collections/fisherman/items/1.0012063 .  While I couldn't spot an image with a licence acceptable for Commons, I suspect it would be possible to craft a fair use rationale for upload on Wikipedia.  From Hill To Shore ( talk ) 08:59, 13 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] As the vessel is still afloat, I think it would be very difficult to argue for the inclusion of a non-free image.  Mjroots ( talk ) 05:31, 14 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I believe there is enough RS for an article.  Most of the article links are dead.  I can see why the nominator put this up for deletion.  One has to search alternate names to find anything at all.  Lightburst ( talk ) 11:42, 13 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep No relevant reason given for deletion.  There seems to be sufficient acceptablecontent, with appropriate referencing.   From a quick internet search there is certainly scope for further expansion covering the period as Kelso serving Tristan da Cunha (already mentioned in at least one other WP article) and, while I would expect there to be material for her 25 years as a Japanese government research ship, sourcing it may be more of a challenge.  Davidships ( talk ) 12:47, 13 July 2023 (UTC) [edited later] Davidships ( talk ) 14:37, 13 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , has significant coverage.  Fulmard ( talk ) 19:01, 15 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - not being able to find a photo of the ship is not a reason to nominate it for deletion.  Next time, go to the articles talk page and place the {{photo requested}} tag at the top of the page, directly beneath any WikiProject tags.  As for the notability, this article seems to check out and it is sourced strongly and accordingly.  4theloveofallthings ( talk ) 4theloveofallthings ( talk ) 00:17, 17 July 2023 (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.

Discussion outcome: keep