Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Pride of Baltimore

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP. fuddlemark (talk) 07:20, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pride_of_Baltimore

Article on a ship, "Pride of Baltimore". Obviously a local phenomenon, but the article only addresses the reproduction, not the original 1812 specification. Erwin Walsh

• Not just local - the picture in the article was taken in Fredrikstad in Norway. In my opinion the subject is worthy of an article, though it's true that the current two sentences are woefully inadequate. The article was created from a link in a list of tall ships, many of which have useful articles. This could be expanded into another such. PeteVerdon 10:31, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. There are not that many Tall ships on the globe. Put User:Erwin Walsh up for deletion intead. Pilatus 19:15, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Walsh is establishing himself as the first Wiki VfD troll. This is one of many bulk VfDs he has done. Also he marked his post 'm', vfd is obviously not a minor edit.--Gorgonzilla 20:41, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, as per Pilatus, but assume good faith, eh? --fuddlemark 21:21, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, per Pilatus. —Cleared as filed. 06:29, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, May be a stub and in need of a clean up but considering that Pride II just left Baltimore, Ireland for Torquay, UK and will be in Santander, Spain for the Santander Tall Ships' Regatta next month....she is a tireless goodwill ambassador, having sailed over 350,000 miles combined (a distance more than 14 times around the Earth) and visited over 200 ports in 40 countries in North, South, and Central America, Europe, and Asia. If this is the definition of provincial, and "local phenomenon" is a reason for deletion, then Erwin Walsh should just put Wikipedia up for deletion, I mean there's only really about 30 useful language editions. -Seasee 22:11, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
• The hell with this. It's been up for 17 days now, everyone's voted keep. It's time to read through some policies ... --fuddlemark (talk) 07:16, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.