Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mini-Cup (3rd nomination)


 * 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 - the discussion converged towards the consensus that there is insufficient notability. Deryck C. 21:11, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Mini-Cup
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This has been tagged for notability for 7 years, and has had no consensus at 2 AfDs, mainly due to low participation. I think if it is no consensus again, the notability tag should be removed. Pinging those who have commented on its notability before:, , , , , ,. Boleyn (talk) 20:34, 11 April 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 20:34, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete (recycling my January, 2014 comment) A 1978 attempt at a standardized sailboat design. No more than a few dozen were ever built. Not notable. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  00:01, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 18:48, 19 April 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, § FreeRangeFrog croak 21:11, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete, design for a home-made boat? Fail to see notability. Renata (talk) 21:16, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. The first Popular Mechanics reference is a substantial article which is unambiguously about the subject (i.e., not a trivial mention). Plenty of search engine presence with people still building them today. With kit cars and homebuilt aircraft as precedent, such articles are generally kept. Pax 08:53, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete. I agree that the first Pop Mech article is a good reference, for the reasons cited by Pax.  But, that's not enough.  One of the other Pop Mech refs is an advertisement, and the other is an inconsequential mention (it would carry more weight if it was in a publication independent of the first ref).  I found a couple of other mentions in a google search, but nothing I would consider to meet our standard as a reliable source.  If somebody could show me one (or even better, two) additional, solid, sources, I'll change my tune, but given what we have now, I'm going to have to go with delete.  I would not be opposed to leaving this debate open for another week to see if somebody can find more sources.   -- RoySmith (talk) 00:17, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete It states that only a few dozen were made. I didn't find anything about them still being made. But "mini-cup" is very generic and is a prize for a lot of contests, so it's possible I missed some RS. Elgatodegato (talk) 03:24, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment, boy is that WP:Search engine test essay ever old and outdated. This topic is the perfect reason why. A large majority of the Google hits have to do with an entirely unrelated auto racing topic. Who knows? Maybe that auto racing topic is notable. Yeah, there were a couple of articles in Popular Mechanics and Popular Science about 35 years ago. But those magazines have published speculative coverage of non-notable topics for 70 years. Flying cars and underwater houses and all. Those articles there plus a few blog posts is not enough in my view. Cullen328   Let's discuss it  04:10, 9 May 2015 (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.