The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. 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.

The result was keep‎ . ✗plicit 00:41, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Auriga Leader[edit]

Auriga Leader (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to be a run-of-the-mill ship with no substantial coverage. References are press releases from a decade ago for a "PR stunt" installing solar panels that provide 1/2000th of the ship's energy. Walt Yoder (talk) 00:48, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Walt Yoder (talk) 00:48, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:28, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Bensci54 (talk) 16:53, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. It's an expiremental ship so not "a run-of-the-mill ship". I have not yet looked for sources, hence only a comment. Nomination seems to be focused on references, rather than on sources, as we should per WP:NEXIST. On the upside, correct use of the concept "references". gidonb (talk) 03:44, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:13, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep there is extensive coverage of this ship, including 1, 2, 3 and 4. There’s plenty more beside this. Mccapra (talk) 04:28, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, Mccapra's sources (and here's another one I found) show the ship passes WP:GNG. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 15:42, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Further to my initial comment, and the sources found by Mccapra and KN2731, this ship passes the WP:GNG. gidonb (talk) 12:46, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The amount of the ship powered by solar power is irrelevant to whether it is notable. There is significant coverage, so it is notable. Bensci54 (talk) 16:56, 28 April 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.