Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sirius 26

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:32, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sirius 26

[Hide this box]New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

All the sources are routine coverage; they are indexes dedicated to raw information on sailboats. Search online reveals no sources good enough for Wikipedia. Bremps... 00:53, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This article should not have been brought for AfD as a first step, prior to any talk page discussion, or even article tagging for improvement. Please see WP:BEFORE for the correct sequence, especially item C3 If an article has issues try first raising your concerns on the article's talk page, with the main contributors, or an associated WikiProject, and/or adding a cleanup tag, such as {{notability}}, {{hoax}}, {{original research}}, or {{advert}}; this ensures readers are aware of the problem and may act to remedy it. The article has now been expanded with additional refs and text. - Ahunt (talk) 01:23, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - there is a whole sailing project: https://www.search.com.vn/wiki/en/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Sailing with very similar articles. I fail to see where the majority of articles might find sources good enough. If they have not been challenged as well, maybe the other 6,000 + articles of low importance are in the same boat.JarrahTree 01:34, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's a completely disingenuous argument. GNG is universal. Shall we say that anything that falls under at least one WikiProject cannot ever be deleted??? Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:07, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You bring up a good point, JarrahTree. I went to the Sailing projects and picked 3 boats at random and all 3 had MAJOR sourcing issues. There needs to be a huge undertaking of improving/deleting/draftifying these articles. -- Mike 🗩 18:10, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Notification of the existence of this AfD has been made at WikiProject Sailing, within whose scope this article falls. - Ahunt (talk) 01:42, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products and Transportation. Skynxnex (talk) 15:35, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the clear inability of the keep voters to show any coverage in sources besides databases. "The article has been expanded" with exclusively primary sources, failing to show any secondary source coverage. I don't know what sort of local consensus sailboat fans think they have, but GNG applies to them just as it does to everyone else. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:07, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I think you are confused. WP:PRIMARY sources would be references such as the manufacturer's website. WP:SECONDARY sources would be sources, such as a class type club, analysis and reviews. All the sources cited in the article are WP:TERTIARY sources, unrelated to the manufacturer and certainly not primary sources. The links explain the distinction. WP:GNG states A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. All the ten sources currently cited meet that criteria. - Ahunt (talk) 22:59, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  It is the group of sailboat fans including yourself who consider GNG and notabililty optional that are confused. If you consider TWO SENTENCES (and several of these are literally just two sentences) to be significant coverage, you clearly are dealing in alternative facts. It's rather clear you're throwing shit at the wall and seeing what sticks, which is why all you've been able to gather are database sites like the appropriately named sailboatdata.com and sailboat.guide. Wikipedia is not a database, and all you've done is scrape databases. These do not meet GNG and do not contribute to a claim of notability. If this sailboat is notable, why are you unable to locate a single example of a substantive review, analysis, commentary, or story involving it?
  Do me a favor and reread WP:GNG. I will highlight the relevant sentence for you: Sources should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. Since we are in agreement that this article has no secondary sources, it logically follows the subject is not notable and does not merit its own article. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:35, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think you need to read WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL and remove your personal attacks above. This is not how we conduct AfD. - Ahunt (talk) 13:03, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was expecting such a reply as you are unable to refute my arguments. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:16, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, specific assessment of new article expansion and sources would be useful here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:55, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the sources only show that the boat exists. I see no significant coverage from reliable sources that indicate notability. -- Mike 🗩 13:44, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I did a quick source assessment, there just isn't anything that would remotely pass WP:GNG. If this is the quality of sources, most sailboat articles have, a huge undertaking needs to be performed of cleanup and removal.

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
1	sailboatdata.com claims to use brochures from the manufacturer	sailboatdata.com uses a mixture of plans, brochures, and user submissions	Just a database entry	✘ No
2	sailboatdata.com claims to use brochures from the manufacturer	sailboatdata.com uses a mixture of plans, brochures, and user submissions	Just a database entry	✘ No
3		Community curated and also claims to gather information from Wikipedia	Database entry	✘ No
4		Community curated and also claims to gather information from Wikipedia	Database entry	✘ No
5		Community curated and also claims to gather information from Wikipedia	Database entry	✘ No
6		No statements of editorial independence, just 'sailing passionates'		✘ No
7		? No indication of how facts are gathered	Just basic facts	✘ No
8	sailboatdata.com claims to use brochures from the manufacturer	sailboatdata.com uses a mixture of plans, brochures, and user submissions	Just a database entry	✘ No
9	sailboatdata.com claims to use brochures from the manufacturer	sailboatdata.com uses a mixture of plans, brochures, and user submissions	Just a database entry	✘ No
10		Community curated and also claims to gather information from Wikipedia	Database entry	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

-- Mike 🗩 14:14, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - You can note that the vast majority of sailboat class articles have multiple reviews from magazines and books. Most new production sailboats end up with multiple third party reviews published, as there are dozens of industry magazines that cover new product releases, conduct sailing trials on them and naturally manufacturers are keen to provide new-production demonstrator boats for magazines to write about. As the text describes, this particular boat was a short production run, as the company went out of business shortly after its introduction and only six were produced. The inclusion of the article is for purposes of completing the story of this manufacturer. Because it was an established manufacturer, the boat class probably was reviewed in magazines at the time, but this was the pre-internet year of 1987 and these paper publications have been hard to locate. I should also add that all third party reviews, book references and similar will use technical data provided by the manufacturer, as they are sole source of information like the boat's displacement. This is true of reviews done of almost every type of product, including cars, railway locomotives, airplanes and similar; reviewers have no means of independently determining much of the data used. There is always use made of manufacturer's data in third party reviews. - Ahunt (talk) 14:43, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You bring up locomotives as an example. Here's one source on a locomotive model that gives more information than all of yours combined: [1]. And, it is published by a reliable secondary source. I am still waiting for you to show us sources that even come close to this level of coverage. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:22, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I can't yet see a consensus on whether the sources cited in the article are enough to show notability. Input from new participants would be appreciated.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 17:46, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG due to complete lack of WP:SIGCOV. Only sourced by database sources. Alvaldi (talk) 18:51, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I did find this article from The Sun Times (Owen Sound) on Newspapers.com. The publication is from the same town as the company that made the boat. Regardless, WP:GNG requires multiple sources of SIGCOV so even if it wasn't so hyper-local the article would still need more sources to pass. That said, a redirect to Vandestadt and McGruer Limited is also perfectly fine by me if no SIGCOV is found. Alvaldi (talk) 21:41, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Darth Mike @Trainsandotherthings Would you support a redirect to Vandestadt and McGruer Limited instead of deletion? Alvaldi (talk) 09:46, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there's any reliably sourced information to merge. -- Mike 🗩 19:30, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am in concurrence with Darth Mike. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:25, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more try...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 04:59, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. All the sources I can find appear to be WP:ROUTINE, Fails WP:GNG and I don't see any WP:SNG guideline that would apply. Jacona (talk) 15:20, 2 October 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.