Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Loon (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. Randykitty (talk) 13:33, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Loon (yacht)

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

This reads like an advertisement for a charter yacht, probably because that's exactly what it is. It doesn't establish the notability of the boat. It only serves to promote the product.

I did PROD this, but the article creator who has made few other edits removed the PROD notice as is his right. 10mmsocket (talk) 09:12, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products and Transportation.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:34, 3 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete this advertisement. There is nothing notable about this boat, aside from its size, and likely, its price per day.  The reference websites are PR engines failing independent, not journalism.  Ask yourself whether any of the attributed authors of articles have actually seen the Loon, failing reliable. Rhadow (talk) 12:27, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete - Despite a raft of sources in the article, all have issues with independence and reliability being largely promotional pieces. The article as written fails WP:PROMO, so even if reliable secondary sources could be found, there's nothing here of value worth keeping. WJ94 (talk) 15:17, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Comment Maybe I should have SD-nominated it instead of PROD'ing it in the first place. Perhaps a friendly admin will come along and closed this AfD early - if there is such a thing...--10mmsocket (talk) 15:53, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete obvious advertisement wholly unfit for an encyclopedia. Clear failure to assert any real notability, just a bunch of promo for sourcing. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:38, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Comment this article is advertising. Most of the work on this article was paid work by Global Superyacht Marketing. It fails independent, reliable and secondary source. There are plenty of yacht directories. WP need not be another. Rhadow (talk) 17:44, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Keep Whether or not the article was written for money/as an advertisement, there is significant coverage in independent sources: Forbes and Business Insider, for example. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 07:40, 4 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep. As pointed out by 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆, there is no lack of WP:SIGCOV. WP:COI is a concern and warrants extra scrutiny. Having scrutinized this situation: Loon (yacht) can easily be cleaned up. Absolutely no need for WP:TNT! gidonb (talk) 15:13, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete as a near WP:G11 by a (declared at least) paid editor, with no prejudice to recreation by an uninvolved editor with significant sources. Jumpytoo Talk 21:30, 4 February 2023 (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.