Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Le Pietre (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   delete. Consensus seems to lean toward the notion that the ship isn't quite there yet in terms of notability. Juliancolton (talk) 23:10, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Le Pietre (yacht)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Contested PROD (as Le pietre yacht). Fails WP:GNG. It's just someone's yacht. It came third in a non-notable race. Wikipedia is not the place to tell the world about your yacht, however nice it is. Also nominating Le pietre yacht - duplicate of this page. Shirt58 (talk) 09:45, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

The race IS notable and quite popular with those who know about wooden gulets. There is no page about it in wiki yet, but I am sure it will be here soon. On Wikipedia there are pages about other yachts and building companies, like Perini Navi or Aegean Yacht or Cobra yacht and many many others. If you intend to remove this page please remove similar pages as well. I agree that page Le pietre yacht is duplicated, it can be removed. But not this Le Pietre (yacht). 35m vessel is not someone's pet or house, it is a big yacht that deserves it's place in the yacht's list. The page is written according to all wiki's recommendations for writing about yachts Natalia Spatar (talk) 10:13, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The three articles you link are all about shipyards, not individual yachts. To show that it's notable, you need to find "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" (see WP:Notability). At the moment, there's no evidence of that in the article. I'm trying to ignore the fact that it reads like one long advert. Thomas Kluyver (talk) 17:25, 21 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 21 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete with fire. This article is a putrid example of highjacking wikipedia for advertising. Lines like: fabulous space for entertaining are abundant throughout. I tagged the previous article with advert, Primary sources and notability. So far the author has contested a speedy; removed a prod and started a new article sans all of the tags I had placed. The article is also a photo gallery. Rewritten without the advertising slant this article would consist of one paragraph even ignoring the fact that it isn't notable to begin with. Brad (talk) 19:03, 21 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete This article is little more than a sales brochure for this yacht, and is packed full of puffery. It is unreferenced and violates the neutral point of view.  Do we want some rich guy to be able to brag, "My yacht is so spectacular that it has its own Wikipedia page!"  I don't think so.  Cullen328 (talk) 21:34, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Appears to be pure advertising. No references to reliable sources, but tons of adspeak. --NellieBly (talk) 00:55, 23 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep This may be a yacht, but it is not a small pleasure craft. At 135 GT, it is an ocean-going vessel and thus notable. Agree that the article needs a lot of promotional material culled, but that is not a reason to delete. WP:SHIPS notified of discussion. Mjroots (talk) 06:46, 23 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete Not notable. Maybe one day it will be. For now, put it on here: List of large sailing yachts. —Diiscool (talk) 14:39, 23 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - as Mjroots points out, few yachts make it to this size (qualifying for WP:SHIPS, even!). This said, the article is chock full of peacocks and Spam Vikings, and there appears to be no significant coverage of the ship aside from a few Internet links. If the ship had won the Bodrum Cup race, I'd be a bit more sympathetic, but it didn't, and there is no evidence of any form of notability beyond WP:ITEXISTS and the initial, non-bolded-keep's editor's assertion that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. No prejustice against recreation sans spamminess if additional reliable sources allow for the proving of notability in the future. (as a note, given the tone of the article, I'm amazed this got AfD'd instead of G11'd...) - The Bushranger One ping only 15:30, 23 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - Trimmed to improve WP:NPOV, added inline cites. For those who know sailboats, the fact that large, chunky wooden motorsailers like this are being finished out as luxury yachts is somewhat surprising, and certainly makes me take note. The Gulet appears to be an indigenous Turkish development in sailing vessel design, and I suggest that we keep a few examples of vessels like this for purposes of countering systematic bias WP:WORLDVIEW. My guess is that most press coverage of this vessel would be in Turkish, given where it is based, but I can't read the Turkish on the web sites. Also, what Mjroots said: this is a rather large, oceangoing wooden sailing vessel, capable of carrying passengers for hire. It has much more functional hull lines (clearly aimed at commercial purposes of maximizing passenger space) than is typical of luxury sailing yachts. So far, despite the question of limits on oil reserves, we are only getting a very few vessels like this built in the 21st century. Djembayz (talk) 05:01, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps before we spend time creating and cleaning up these advertisements for individual gulets, we should devote energy to cleaning up the basic Gulet article which does not meet our high standards at present. —Diiscool (talk) 13:55, 27 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Could someone here join in and enlist some help on Gulet from WikiProject Turkey, where we might find more language expertise? Djembayz (talk) 14:53, 27 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment Although the article is improved in the sense that overtly promotional language has been removed, the fundamental problem remains. All the information in the article except the raw race results come from a source that was involved in building the yacht.  There is no evidence so far of notability, namely coverage in multiple reliable, secondary sources independent of the topic that discuss this yacht in depth.  Lacking that proven notability, the article simply doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Cullen328 (talk) 20:39, 27 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment Whilst secondary sources are preferred, the is not rule that says we cannot use primary sources in the absence of these. This source is a secondary source, but possibly not a WP:RS, although it does give much useful info for further research. Mjroots (talk) 12:08, 28 February 2011 (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.