Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dickerson 41

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 delete. While there are some qualified comments to weak keep, it isn't convincing enough to overcome what appears to be a consensus to delete. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 02:00, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dickerson 41

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

tagged for notability since march 2009. Non notable IMO Gbawden (talk) 13:14, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep A lot of this rides on whether sailboat models themselves are notable. I can find some specs (e.g. [1]) and something like a history of the builder [2]; looking around it's a reasonably well-known boat in the yachting community. Mangoe (talk) 14:03, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unless the sailboat model is very notable (which IMHO is much less likely than, say, an individual boat of the model series being notable), it should be included in the article about the builder. Tupsumato (talk) 14:24, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as no evidence of any notability. –Davey2010 • (talk) 00:43, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No 3rd parties have mentioned this boat. Frmorrison (talk) 22:21, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is disingenuous to remove the bulk of an article and then nominate it for deletion. Would the closer please note that the comments in this debate were all made on the basis of the stubbed article. It would have been fairer just to nominate it and let it stand or fall on its contents. I really can't agree with the removal of material on the grounds that it is about individual boats of the class. It is perfectly normal to discuss notable individual vessels in an article about the class. For instance, every article in list of battleship classes includes a list of the individual vessels and, where notable, some of their history. As for sources, A Field Guide to Sailboats of North America has a section on the Dickerson 41 and I am seeing numerous mentions in sailing magazines. SpinningSpark 13:03, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - even considering the previous state of the article, there is no evidence of notability. 1292simon (talk) 09:10, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@1292simon: can you explain why you think the book I linked to above is not evidence of notability? SpinningSpark 10:09, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it is routine coverage. As per WP:EXIST (hopefully it doesn't read as antagonistic, it's meant to be tongue-in-cheek), wikipedia would be drowning in articles for every song ever written, every house ever built, etc if there was not some limit on what is considered notable. 1292simon (talk) 11:59, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In what way is that routine coverage? It is a book about sailboats. Clearly, the author has not included every sailboat ever built. He has included the ones he feels are notable. That is our definition of notability: a reliable source has noted it. The "routine coverage" argument is usually applied to things like football matches; the match report is mere routine coverage. It is not usually applied to things that find their way into books (and a football match that did so would then be more than routine). I don't see the point of citing WP:EXIST. This is not merely evidence that the thing exists, it is evidence that a reliable source considered it notable. SpinningSpark 12:13, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. I agree that most of the material removed just prior to this AfD was spammy-fluff. But, the Field Guild to Sailboats cited above appears to be a reliable source. I've also found:

neither of which are wonderful sources, but provide some support. If Dickerson Yachts existed, I would certainly support merging into that, but we don't currently have such an article. Possibly rename this to Dickerson Yachts, restore some of the less fluffy material which was deleted, and include a list of other models built by Dickerson? -- RoySmith (talk) 21:46, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even with that, there is no evidence of notability. Reywas92^Talk 23:20, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For the Dickerson 41 specifically, I agree the reference situation is pretty thin. But, we do a bit better for Dickerson Yachts, as a company:

which is why I think it might make sense to rename this (the more correct name appears to be Dickerson Boatbuilders) and use that as the start of a new article (preserving the history).

-- RoySmith (talk) 00:46, 21 July 2014 (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.