Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Groote Beer (botter yacht)


 * 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The result was speedy keep (nomination withdrawn). (non-admin closure) Jumpytoo Talk 21:00, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Groote Beer (botter yacht)

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Lacks signficant coverage in reliable sources. The sources cited Cometosea and Sailfeed do not appear to be reliable. The first is a defunct personal website, and the second appears to be a blog for a sailing magazine. Seems to rely on the fact that the boat was built for Hermann Goring, but notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. Cannot find significant coverage elsewhere to justify an independent article on this boat. Polyamorph (talk) 07:19, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Polyamorph (talk) 07:19, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. —MdsShakil (talk) 08:41, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. The sources are not as bad as is being made out by the nom. The blog is part of Sail Magazine and is written by the magazine's executive editor Charles Doane.  Doane is the author of numerous reliably published books on sailing, for instance The Modern Cruising Sailboat published by Mcgraw-Hill.  Thus, Doane is an easy pass for WP:SPS test of reliability.  The cometosea page is by Jack van Ommen, also a sailing book author, but mostly self-published as far as I can tell so his page as such cannot be treated as reliable.  However, the main purpose of it being there is to link to his articles on the Groote Beer in Spiegel der Zeilvaart and Wooden Boat which are reliably published magazines.  Our article has not used any of the personal information from van Ommen's page as far as I can tell (which in any case is very short).  Only the reliably published articles have been used.  So the references need to be formatted better to make them clearer, but they are not unreliable. SpinningSpark 10:51, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * A self published website and blog are not particularly reliable sources. I stand by my original opinion on these sources. But the additional information about the authors does help, and the additional sources you've added below also help establish there is some coverage in reliable sources (although I would argue only [2] represents significant coverage). Polyamorph (talk) 13:08, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Blogs are acceptable if they meet the conditions laid out in WP:SPS or WP:NEWSBLOG. Have you read those guidelines?  If you have, I don't see how you can reject Doane since he clearly meets both.  Even van Ommen is a borderline SPS case since he is reliably published directly on the topic of our article in multiple magazines.  So if you accept there are now sources, why are you not withdrawing the nomination? SpinningSpark 13:42, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The sources are not great, of the ones you posted below only one actually appears to represent significant coverage. I might withdraw but would like to see other opinions first. Polyamorph (talk) 13:47, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * P.S. Yes of course I have read WP:SPS and WP:NEWSBLOG but as you have also read these you will be aware that they must be used with caution and it is preferable to find alternative reliable sources, especially for establishing notability. Polyamorph (talk) 13:51, 20 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment. More soures . SpinningSpark 11:01, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. Sources are clearly sufficient for keep. Nomination can be withdrawn. I recommend a rename to Groote Beer (barge), Groote Beer (yacht), or something of sorts. Current dab is way too detailed. Maybe this choice can introduce some interest into this discussion :-) gidonb (talk) 02:55, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment. There is also a New York Times article, for the most part behind a paywall.
 * Withdraw nomination, coverage in reliable sources has been demonstrated. Polyamorph (talk) 05:53, 21 November 2021 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it.</b> 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.