Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Sailboat Hall of Fame


 * 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. Jinian 03:08, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

American Sailboat Hall of Fame

 * — (View AfD)

Non-notable. I've been involved with sailboats for 20 or so years and never heard of this. I know "I've never heard of it" is a pretty weak argument for non-notability, so I did a google search. The top four hits are 1) this article, 2) the SailAmerica website (i.e. the people who invented it), 3) a wikipedia mirror, and 4) a yacht broker who sells a brand of boat on the list. It's not until you get down to the 5th entry that you get an independent source, and that's an article in a trade magazine which only mentions it in passing. In short, it fails WP:N -- RoySmith (talk) 04:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Sufficient reliable sources have been added to the article since I nominated it to convince me I should withdraw my nomination. Thank you to the people (especially Kevin Murray) who put the work into improving the article.  -- RoySmith (talk) 03:07, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete - fails to establish notability or verifiability of notability. CyberAnth 04:33, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. MER-C 07:45, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, non-notable, unverifiable. Terence Ong 15:22, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It certainly is verifiable that the list exists and which boats are on it. But verifiability is not enough.  It must also pass WP:N, which this does not.  -- RoySmith (talk) 18:47, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * After further research and rewritting verifiability is bolstered and notability is established (see discussions below) --Kevin Murray 20:34, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Comments on Nomination:
 * I'm not sure how the order of google hits is relevant to the quality of the independent reference?
 * Why is an award less credible because manufacturers and dealers reference it in their advertising?
 * I agree that the nominator's personal experience is irrelevant to an AfD nomination, so why prattle on about it?
 * True enough, I've struck out that part. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * --Kevin Murray 02:45, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment: "I've never heard of it", and a quick Google search shouldn't serve as criteria for deletion. I know that the nominator withdrew his nomination, and struck out his statement, but I'm just writing this in for future reference. RiseRobotRise 06:44, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Standards for the Award (2004)
 * ''Guided by the Hall of Fame Standard, Sail America has selected 26 boats (in 2004) for induction into the American Sailboat Hall of Fame. These Hall of Fame boats are true American classics, exemplars of the extraordinary skill and ingenuity of American boat builders. They range in size from 8 to 41 feet. Several date to the dawn of the fiberglass era and are considered collector’s items; others are still in production, selling briskly. All have profoundly influenced the sport of sailing. By their sheer excellence, they have made sailing better.


 * Selections for the Hall of Fame were made by a committee of magazine editors comprised of Bill Schanen, Sailing Magazine, chairman; John Burnham, Sailing World; and Charles Mason, SAIL.
 * --Kevin Murray 02:45, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep This award is not some marketing ploy; a significant number of winning boats were out of production when nominated. It has been awarded by independent panels of editors from recognized sailing journals for 12 years (e.g., Sail Magazine, Sailing Magazine, Sailing World).  It is referenced by many online articles which range from advertising to articles in respected journals (e.g., Practical Sailor, Boat US, Yacht World, Sail Magazine, Sailing Magazine, Sailing World etc.)  It is clearly independent and notable within the world of sailing. --Kevin Murray 02:52, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Guidelines Quote from WP:N "Notable here means "worthy of being noted"[1][2] or "attracting notice"[3] , not "important" or "famous". It is not synonymous with fame or importance. It is not measured by Wikipedia editors' own subjective judgements. It is not "newsworthiness".
 * This award is clearly "attracting notice"[3] within the sailing world as demonstrated by the number of references to the award in journals, webpages, etc, as evidenced by over 400 g-hits. This is a lot of search engine recognition for a sport which is hardly recognized on the web. --Kevin Murray 17:45, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep - the only real policy at stake is WP:V, which does not appear to be an issue. I'm not aware of any guidelines that are specific to award-programs.  Since this award doesn't appear to be indiscriminate, and because it has gained usage and recognition (as evidenced by usage within the relavent media), I see no reason not to keep it.  And ironically, if a particular boat was given this award I think they'd probably be able to use it as an argument for their own notability... Tarinth 19:30, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep, after good rewrite by Kevin Murray. It now has reliable sources, notability has been established and everything's there. Don't see a problem yet, but I really hope it can be expanded further. Terence Ong 10:07, 8 January 2007 (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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.