Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Monohull Open Classes Association


 * 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 no consensus.  Sandstein  08:48, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

International Monohull Open Classes Association

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article is completely unreferenced and it fails to signify why this association is notable. -- Tavix ( talk ) 22:05, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 22:20, 13 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep The nomination is unconvincing; looks like a drive-by. Andrew D. (talk) 22:34, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It's definitely not as unconvincing as your comment. ;) I appreciate the good faith though. -- Tavix ( talk ) 22:37, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:08, 13 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep A quick WP:BEFORE would have shown a range of reliable sources in English, French, Portuguese, Russian, Greek... etc. (and also a referenced & sourced article in the Portuguese language Wikipedia). Exemplo347 (talk)
 * ...and where might those sources be? They're certainly not in the article. -- Tavix ( talk ) 23:56, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh dear - I shouldn't have to explain WP:BEFORE to an Admin & I'm not willing to do so because it'll make me sound like an ass. Exemplo347 (talk) 23:59, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I know what BEFORE is, I just don't see evidence of notability. Those are two separate things. Proving notability by providing significant coverage in multiple, independent sources (preferably in the article) would go a long way to solving this problem. Until then, I stand by my nomination. -- Tavix ( talk ) 00:09, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Wow, OK... Just by clicking on "Find Sources" at the top of this discussion I've found this, this, this, this, and in Books I found quite a few results. Honestly, there is so much coverage in such a wide range of sources that I'm quite surprised to be asked to do your leg-work for you. Exemplo347 (talk) 00:24, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't call it doing my legwork, I'm prodding you to formulate a "keep" !vote that has some meat to it. If you continue to do that, you'll be well on your way to "winning" more often. That being said, I have my doubts about those sources, but I appreciate the effort. Cheers, -- Tavix ( talk ) 01:06, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't need to be prodded - if a proper WP:BEFORE had been done I wouldn't have had to show you that there are sources. Also, I don't think "winning" is an actual thing in AfD discussions. It's about policy, nothing more. Exemplo347 (talk) 01:50, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It most certainly is about policy. That's why articles should have multiple references from independent, reliable sources showing significant coverage, per WP:GNG. Anything less than that, and it should be deleted. -- Tavix ( talk ) 01:58, 14 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep per sources uncovered by . If they exist, then the subject meets the WP:GNG whether or not they are currently incorporated into the article: see eg. WP:NOIMPROVEMENT. Also a little perturbed by the sniping from : we're all here to deliberate and discuss, let's cool it a bit. Amisom (talk) 13:47, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you mean. I completely agree with you that we're here to deliberate and discuss and that's exactly what I'm doing. Perhaps if I explain myself a little better, that might help. Let's take a look at the sources provided by Exemplo: 1) appears to be run by IMOCA for their Ocean Master's World Championship. It's not an independent source so that can't be used towards meeting WP:GNG. 2) is boats.com, which is described as an "advertising website". They're in the business of selling boats, not upholding editorial integrity, so they would not be classified as a WP:Reliable source. 3) I get an error message trying to open it, so I will withhold judgement of it. 4) appears to be a blog? I'm not too sure since I read a machine translated version of the article. I'd be interested in getting your own analysis of those sources and why you feel they meet WP:GNG. I apologize if you feel I'm "sniping". -- Tavix ( talk ) 15:12, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Weak keep After looking-up sources provided by I started to considered it meeting bottom-line notability criteria. However, I am still not sure about the existance of significant coverage of the subject.  Tymon. r   Do you have any questions?  19:12, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:51, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment I've tried to search for sources since a couple of days. I've added two sources too to the article. However, I have not been able to find significant sources. This organization seems to be significant in oceanic sailing, and has even propounded the standards for some categories. But there's no significant coverage in reliable sources. I'll await responses from the editors who have mentioned keep, failing which, I would recommend a delete. Lourdes  13:39, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Additional note: The four sources provided by Exemplo347 are reviewed below by me:
 * Imocaoceanmasters.com: Absolutely primary source; doesn't talk about IMOCA but about the races etc; is not an RS.
 * Boats.com: It's a boat selling site, with the topmost links being "Boats for sale", "Sell my boat"...; not an RS.
 * Isafyouthworlds.com Auckland Youth Sailing World Championship website: The link is dead.
 * VendeeGlobe.org: Primary source; doesn't talk about IMOCA but about its race; is not an RS.
 * All other comments of the keep !voters has been without any guideline basis. So it'll be good if someone can either quote a guideline or provide reliable sources. Because the only two sources in the article are the ones added by me; and there have been no other RS forwarded till now. Thanks. Lourdes  03:48, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Deletion would be quite inappropriate because this is the governing body for a major class of racing yachts. Note that the main race for the class -- the Vendee Globe -- finished recently and got good coverage in mainstream sources such as the BBC and Daily Telegraph.  There is obviously lots of coverage in the specialist press for this sport such as Yachting World.  In such circumstances, there are obvious alternatives to deletion and so the topic should be left to editors who know something about it, rather than being disrupted in a crude, drive-by manner.  This approach is very much our policy. Andrew D. (talk) 13:06, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi . Thanks for the response. I understand what you're referring to and accept your point of the organization being significant (even I've mentioned the same in my statement). I started with the same viewpoint as yours (and in fact, in Afds, my first attempt is that only; perhaps the reason why I must be !voting keep a significant number of times). I would also accept that the competition is quite notable. But then, there are no sources at all covering the organization! I can on the other hand go the way schools or national political parties are kept at Afd, if you can guide me to some precedent documenting page (whether essay or guideline), which mentions that such organizations which run notable races/events are generally kept at Afds; I'll be more than pleased to withdraw my viewpoint thereon. Of if you can suggest similar organizations which have been kept at Afds, that too is acceptable. Other than that, I absolutely reject your suggestion that this is a crude, drive-by manner nomination at all. There are absolutely no significant sources covering the organization and the nominator is quite intelligent to have identified this organization. I respect your experience here and don't feel I should be arguing with you. Will await your links or examples of previously kept organizations. Thanks. Lourdes  13:15, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Just for reference, in my view, this organization satisfies one part of the suggested two points in WP:NONPROFIT. Thanks. Lourdes  13:20, 25 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. My own searching failed to come up with any good sources for the association.  Looking at other popular boats, we tend to have articles for the boat, but not for the class association.  Thus, J24, but not International J24 Class Assocation.  We have Laser (sailboat), but not International Laser Class Association.  And, on the big-boat scene, we have 12 meter class, but not International Twelve Metre Association.  Being the governing body for a major class of racing yachts is not sufficient to demonstrate notability by our policies.  You need good sources, and they don't seem to exist.  -- RoySmith (talk) 17:03, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete I've waited for quite a few days now after requesting sources or relevant guidelines. Not one source has been provided that either is significant or covers the association/organisation in depth. No guideline has been quoted that allows such cases to remain. I'm one of the editors at Afds with a significantly higher average of keep !votes than others. I even managed to find two sources and added the same to the article (which are, till date, the only two sources that exist in the article). Clearly, I'm not going to shed tears at my work on the article going waste if the article gets deleted. In my personal opinion, such articles should be kept for informational purposes (our NLIST guidelines allow lists to be kept like that); and we should update our guidelines for such reasons. Till that is done, I am not going to support keeping such articles. I would advise the closing administrator not to close this as no consensus. There is absolute consensus for delete, given that the keep assertions have till now not provided any supporting source or guideline - with due respect to Andrew's comments. Lourdes  04:08, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - seems to be pretty significant in the world of sail racing. I found this, this, which seems to indicate that the World Championships held in this organization's name are a pretty big thing, and it gets lots of mentions like this, this, this, this, this (if they are the group which gives the classifications out, that would also be an indication of notability), this, and this. Searching for IMOCA, yields thousands of results which deal with this organization's classifications, etc. Onel 5969  TT me 18:55, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi, I've gone through all your sources. There's no source that talks about the organization. There are references to either the event that the organization holds, or to a yacht class the organization maintains standards for. Which source are you referring to for significant coverage of the organization? Also, which notability guideline would you be referring to, to keep the article? Thanks. Lourdes  19:07, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi - Forgive me, for the life of me, I can't link to the correct guideline/policy. I'm at work, and can't access the information until later tonight, but there is a guideline which says that when a topic is mentioned enough, even if they are all trivial mentions, the weight of the trivial mentions constitutes notability. I hadn't heard of it either, but learned of it through an AfD discussion a couple of years ago. I used to know it off the top of my head, but I'm not that active on AfD anymore, so this addled mind can't remember the acronym for it, so will have to go back to some of the AfD discussions where I voted keep and see if I can find it.  Onel 5969  TT me 19:22, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi . Sure. Take your time. Thanks for the response. Lourdes  19:24, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello, pinging you to request you for quoting the notability guideline. Also, none of your sources cover the workings of the organization. Would you consider withdrawing your keep !vote? Thanks and have a good day. Lourdes  03:20, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi - I looked at about 100 or so of my AfD votes, and couldn't find the link. The best I found was specific to biographies (WP:BASIC - which I don't think applies in this case). Thanks for pinging again, as I am working on a couple of articles, and this wasn't my focus. But no, I don't think I'll remove my keep !vote. An organization which oversees the world championship, and who regulates the classes of the competing groups, in my opinion, is notable. Perhaps IAR applies here. Onel 5969  TT me 03:27, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I took a look at the nine sources cited above. Of them, four were in English, so I concentrated on those (not being in English doesn't mean the others aren't good sources, just that I'm not in a position to evaluate them very well):
 * Canada Rolex Sailor of the Year to form offshore race team (Scuttlebutt Sailing News). Let's pass for a moment on whether a site like Scuttlebutt is a WP:RS.  This is not about the IMOCA.  It is about Eric Holden.  IMOCA is barely mentioned, and then only in the context of the races it manages.
 * Sailing world descends on Muscat for week-long ISAF Annual Conference (inside the games). Another site which probably doesn't meet WP:RS.  And, again, this isn't about IMOCA.  It's about a conference held by ISAF.  IMOCA isn't event mentioned until deep in the article, and then only in the context of a race which was won by a person who's going to the conference.
 * Why do the new Vendee Globe IMOCA 60 yachts have foils? (Yachting World). Yachting World is at least a solid WP:RS.  But, again, not about IMOCA.  It's about a class of boats sanctioned (maybe that's not the best word?) by IMOCA.
 * THE FUTURE OF THE IMOCA (Sailing World). Definitely meets WP:RS, but once again, not really about IMOCA, the organization.  It's about the IMOCA 60 class, which we do have an article about.
 * In short, none of these meet WP:SIGCOV. They are all what we call passing mentions.  Some of the sources would be good references for other articles (i.e. IMOCA 60), but they don't justify an article on the association itself.  -- RoySmith (talk) 00:51, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment hi again. Thanks for clarifying that you believe this article may qualify on WP:IAR. In my opinion, IAR should not be invoked unless there are egregious circumstances for the same. Thanks once more for the response. Have a good night. Cheers.  Lourdes  05:16, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
 * - that may be your opinion but it is one not borne out by the text of WP:IAR, which contains no "exceptional circumstances only" clause, but instead is phrased in deliberately general terms. Amisom (talk) 18:31, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 23:16, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
 * This is SIGCOV Amisom (talk) 14:48, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The one line on IMOCA your source documents is a Letter to the Editor, and goes like this: "Around Alone was the catalyst for the development of sound rules, now recognized by the International Monohull Classes Association (IMOCA), which have produced the very fast yachts we see in around-the-world races today.". Letters to the editor are unacceptable as RS. And one line is absolutely not significant coverage. Is there something else you wanted to link? Because if you meant this link in reality, you need to first read up on what Wikipedia means by reliable sources before listing more sources. We're volunteers and it's an investment of time which should not be wasted. Ask me for any assistance if you don't understand the guidelines page. Thanks. Lourdes  17:38, 7 February 2017 (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.