Talk:Aloha 27

Dubious notability
The notability here is very dubious. It's a sailboat that existed. Specifications for it were published on various sites. An ad was printed, as linked in the Angelfire 'source', and I use that word lightly as well, Angelfire is not a reliable source, nor is an ad for a product. There is not in depth coverage here. Wikipedia is not a web host, nor is it a directory of things. It is an encyclopedia of notable things. I would note that the editor who supports this page has many page creations on non-notable sailboats.198.58.163.19 (talk) 02:55, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
 * As explained at WP:Notability is established by coverage of the subject in independent third party references. This article is supported by 12 references, 10 of which are independent of the subject and two of which are an owner's club and factory brochure. Despite the fact that you don't like the subject, it meets all requirements for an article on Wikipedia. If we applied your standards we would have no articles on any sailboat types, nor cars, motorcycles, trucks, trains or aircraft. - Ahunt (talk) 11:47, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
 * You're missing the point, I am only stating th established policy that articles require in-depth sourcing. I'm sorry that such an experienced editor misunderstands the basic concept of notability. In depth coverage is lacking. That's the whole point. In depth coverage in reliable sources is how notability is determined.198.58.163.19 (talk) 19:30, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
 * You also misstate the references. The first ref is to the designer: not independent. An owner's club as a ref is not independent. Looking at many of your articles, I can see that you have not used in-depth sources, but have instead built them based on specifications lists published by enthusiasts. The point here is that articles on non-notable sailboats are being created, due to a failure to include in-depth sources that are more than owner's groups or links to sailboatdata.com. I would suggest you read up a bit on notability and in-depth sources. 198.58.163.19 (talk) 19:34, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
 * First off please refer to WP:NPA and drop the insults. Second, have you read the refs cited? They include in depth reviews of the design in industry publications. The subject clearly meets WP:N, but if you think it doesn't then you are invited to find additional refs and expand the article, since that is how Wikipedia works. - Ahunt (talk) 19:36, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I believe what is better her is if we take this to Afd, so I will create an account and do so. Your insinuation that my good faith criticisms are WP:IDONTLIKEIT is also a form of personal attack so lay off.198.58.163.19 (talk) 19:39, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Sure go ahead and nominate this article for AFD. You seem to be determined to have it deleted anyway. - Ahunt (talk) 19:54, 4 July 2018 (UTC)