Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Morrelli, Chance & Hubbart & MacLane


 * 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   redirect to  Stars & Stripes (yacht). Retaining the history so that anything else that is not already in the target can be merged in Black Kite (talk) 19:43, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Morrelli, Chance & Hubbart & MacLane

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Group of people that worked together on the design of a boat. Nothing to indicate they have any notability as a group outside that one project. Already covered in Stars & Stripes (yacht) and 1988 America's Cup. noq (talk) 10:49, 29 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. This group of designers has no notability beyond that little conferred by having worked on a 1988 America's Cup yacht, which as the nominator points out is already adequately covered elsewhere. George Ponderevo (talk) 13:56, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 29 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep These men changed history. The Americas cup is the oldest trophy in modern sports. it has been going on for over 130 years and prior to this group of men, the last time the yacht type was changed was the result of a World War. Dennis Conner was faced with a challenge that was daunting and he enlisted this group to accomplish this objective. IMHO Wikipedia is lacking in its coverage of The Americas Cup as well as Yachting in general, and editors should be encouraged to continue to evolve its coverage of this sport. What is interesting to ANY sailor about this group of men is the fact that the 4 were brought together to accomplish something that in fact provided the roots for what continues today. Many of these men STILL work in the program and have in fact become the creators of the boats that race the cup today.
 * Catamaran sailors of the 1980's were "Hippies and Adrenaline Junkies" that sailed, in that the trade off that a cat sailor made in exchange for speed was "terminal" in so much as a Cat flips and the race is over for that boat. Monohull sailors were considered more sophisticated in so much as the boat that were sailed would take a "Knock Down" and still be able to recover and win the race. What Conner did was to combine the best of the best to create what has today become the standard in Racing the Americas Cup. **A Cat builder, a Yacht Designer whose family grew up racing Olympic and Americas Cup Monohulls, a wing designer and a World Class Cat sailor, this group as a group is mentioned in almost every story that is on the web about the 1998 race. It was a spectacle to say the least, I was in a boat watching the race that Summer in San Diego.
 * Wikipedia should encourage the development of stories that are critical events in history. To say that these men are in any way not relevant as a group then or now is simply not true, nor is it in the best interests of the development of encyclopedic content. --WPPilot 14:01, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll ask you again - you have still to answer - can you demonstrate that this group of people is WP:notable outside the context of the existing articles about the boat and the America's cup. If not, then they do not need their own page. noq (talk) 19:29, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you should review the notablity page.
 * Notability is not temporary: once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage.


 * While notability itself is not temporary, from time to time re-assessment of the evidence of notability or suitability of existing articles may be requested by any user via a deletion discussion, or new evidence may arise for articles previously deemed unsuitable. Thus, articles may be proposed for deletion or recreated months or even years after being earlier considered.


 * In particular, if reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having a biographical article on that individual .


 * Nothing in WP:notable states that a group, that has been clearly defined by history as a group, in media globally does not qualify for a Wiki page. While I agree that these men perhaps do not need as the notability guidlines provides, a page for each person as the guidelines states "we should generally avoid having a biographical article" but you have assumed that this group should be treated as a Biographical artical, on a individual.


 * You upon review of your own logs have a clear history of posting delete tags on everything you seem to find. You have continued to push this issue and you have created a page that will allow other members of Wikipedia to comment and decide, as per the terms of Wikipedia. You are clearly not a sailor, nor do you have any experence according to your own member logs at anything other then posting the removal tag on any new story that seems pop up.[]


 * The best I can guess is that your claim that these men are not notable unless the group as a group did something outside of changing the way the most famous race on earth is raced, and designing the 2 yachts and wings that did it. You are treating this as if it is a biographical article on a individual, yet it is NOT. Removing this and merging the data would only serve to censor the facts from the public at large. Perhaps you should go back to reverting edits that are in need of being reverted and, I would suggest that you allow the public to decide what to do with this story. I as a sailor and a contributor to Wiki for 4 years now personally feel that you are being ridiculous by attacking this story.--WPPilot 01:57, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I have highlighted above a passage you copied here. Grouping those individuals together by a list of names and then writing mini articles about each individual seems to be an attempt to bypass that. WP:1E should be taken into account here, any notability is only in the context of that one event and is already covered in the pertinent articles.  noq (talk) 12:36, 5 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - Surely Noq does not understand the article. Their notability is linked to the yacht, which is notable. There are also sufficient reliable sources which verifies their notability as the "design team". As far as this article is concerned, they should not be viewed as independent people but as a team, which I believed one of the editors in this messy AfD (where some don't bother to sign their names properly and keeping to protocol i.e. : keep, delete, comment, indent, etc.) already mentioned they are a group. They should not be viewed individually. In deed in some of the the sources, they are referred to as the the "design team". As regards to the notability of this article, I see no problem whatsoever and have no idea why it was put on AfD. A proper check would have verified notability. It begs the question what checks were done before this article was put on AfD. Now, there may be an argument for renaming but that is another issue. As far as notability is concerned, I see no problem whatsoever.Tamsier (talk)
 * Comment I understand the article perfectly, again I ask - apart from the one event which is already covered, what are these group of men notable for. Bear in mind that notability is not inherited. Reading the article it rehashes what is in other articles and now gives a brief bio of the individuals. Nothing substantial about the group as a group that is not already covered. noq (talk) 12:36, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * ""Observation"" Noq has a long history of doing patrol work, and from this users log that seems to be the only function that this user has been able to provide. Noq should allow the Wiki community to decide and perhaps Noq  can find some other stories to delete as Noq CLEARLY is not being rational with regard to this issue.WPPilot (talk)
 * At Noq - Your understanding of the article is debatable but if you insist. Further, articles are deleted based on Wiki's deletion policy, not your personal preference. It is irrelevant how many events these people are notable for. What is relevant is that, they are notable for an event (or something) and the article reflects this. If we are to go by your preference, there will be few articles in Wikipedia. If you don't like it, you are at liberty to voice your opinion about the relevant policy in the appropriate page. The reason why you will continue to have problems with my opinion is that, I do not subscribe to your drive-by tagging, which are in many cases, unjustifiable. Again, as regards to the notability of this article, I see no problem with it. Just because some parts of this article are covered in other articles is no ground for deletion. This article is notable on its own merit. At present, I have not been convinced otherwise.Tamsier (talk) 17:09, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The article is about a group of people, those people as a group did one notable thing that is already covered in other articles. Remove the duplication and what is left is a group of biographies of four individuals with primary source references. The notability is with the boat not this arbitrary group of people involved in the design of the boat. What is covered in the sources is better covered in the context of the boat - there does not appear to be any notability of these people outside that context. noq (talk) 19:36, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * This event is significant and the people's role in it is significant per WP:1E. Further, we generally put articles through AfD for notability and RS/V reasons. The article is notable and there are sufficient reliable sources that establish notability which is all I am interested in per Wiki policy. I don't know what the problem is. Tamsier (talk) 20:38, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:FORK also seems relevant. The event is significant and the role in it is also significant granted. But it is already covered. What does having another article with the same content but without the context add? that one event is covered, so why create a second article to re-iterate it? If it is so significant where is John Marshall in the title? He is at least as well covered in the one reference that this whole thing is based on. noq (talk) 23:41, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I am making a report with regard to noq upon the fringe theories noticeboard for "POV pushing"--WPPilot 04:21, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Morrelli.2C_Chance_.26_Hubbart_.26_MacLane @ Noq - You seem to be shopping for policies in order to delete this article. Your first issue was notability, which is generally what determines whether an article put up for AfD should be deleted. Notability was established per RS as well as the notability of the event. You then moved on to other inapplicable policies and now WP:FORK. Yet, you provided no justification for your claim other than a sweeping statement : "WP:FORK also seems relevant". Really! How? Articles put up for AfD are generally deleted if they are none notable and sourced with RS. This article is notable and I will not be made to go around in circle. I therefore respectfully exit this discussion and perhaps other editors may step in to bring some sense to this discussion.Tamsier (talk) 11:15, 6 July 201
 * please read the nomination again Group of people that worked together on the design of a boat. Nothing to indicate they have any notability as a group outside that one project. Already covered in Stars & Stripes (yacht) and 1988 America's Cup. Highlights one event, and content fork as already covered in two existing articles. The first commenter on this debate did not seem to have any problem understanding that and this comment on the fringe theory noticeboard seems to understand it also. noq (talk) 11:57, 6 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm completely at a loss to understand why WPPilot initiated a report at the fringe theories noticeboard, but it's good to see that it's being given the short shrift it deserves. What's puzzling me just as much though is this: if these four men are notable beyond having worked on a boat together in 1988, then why do none of them have their own articles? George Ponderevo (talk) 15:50, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Reply. Sometimes small groups are notable as a group, rather than individually, so the article is about the group. See, for example, Wright Brothers. Wilbur &amp; Orville Wright are certainly notable individually, but the article covers both of them. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 19:36, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see how this group, who only briefly worked together on one project, can in any way be compared to the Wright Brothers. George Ponderevo (talk) 21:54, 10 July 2012 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   07:59, 7 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - As above.Tamsier (talk) 08:45, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Only one !vote each, please.
 * Delete (I'd say redirect to a more appropriate article, but it's extremely doubtful anyone would search for this specific string of names with the one comma and two ampersands) There is simply nothing to show that this group of names together have any notability separate from the boat and/or race, which are already covered at Stars & Stripes (yacht) and 1988 America's Cup. WP:ONEEVENT and WP:FORK both apply here quite strongly: this article makes no attempt to describe any other notable event they may have been involved in (one event), and it's acting as yet another article on the same topic already included elsewhere (fork). These men as a group fail WP:GNG, it is the boat and event that are notable. Arguments above seem to either just assert notability without any attempt to cite policy or attempt to prevail through character assassination on the nominator. We should be commending noq for patrolling pages and taking the time to make sure articles comply with our policies, not attacking him for it.DreamGuy (talk) 15:56, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: Don't see that the person commented here, but on the WP:FRINGE noticeboard we had another commenter saying: "This is not our bailiwick. It's obvious to me that the article on the four designers should be rolled into the article on the boat, but I see nothing about it that has anything to do with fringe theories. Mangoe (talk) 10:18, 6 July 2012 (UTC)". I think that editor's comment should also be weighed in this AFD. DreamGuy (talk) 15:56, 7 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Merge to Stars & Stripes (yacht). This is an article about the building of the boat. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:40, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm not sure what there is to merge that is not already covered in that article. noq (talk) 17:25, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * CommentPerhaps you should read the story, nothing regarding the real ID's of these people is in ANY story on Wiki. Perhaps you chould point out the location of the content that this story has, such as the Names of these people and backgrounds of each one? On every location it is only refered to as a group using the last names to create the name of a group.--WPPilot 18:47, 9 July 2012 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 00:02, 15 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete At first I thought this was a law firm. It seems to be just four people hired to do a job.  Their identity as a group does not seem to be notable, at least from the sources provided. Kitfoxxe (talk) 01:15, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is just a "where are they now" follow up to the Stars & Stripes (yacht) article. Note that User:WPPilot's behaviour in this debate is not helping his cause. Pburka (talk) 01:35, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - My word! This article is relisted again? There was sufficient discussion in the first even in the second for those that contributed. This discussion should have been closed as non-consensus rather than being relisted. In my opinion, I think this is contrary to the spirit of Wiki. It should not have been relisted no matter what views one may hold about the editor.Tamsier (talk) 05:49, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Only one !vote each, please. Pburka (talk) 13:13, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment That was your third !vote on this one debate. As Pburka pointed out, you should limit yourself to one. Only you and the article creator have argued for it be kept, several others have argued the other way. The debate has continued and I have no problem with the discussion being extended although I would not agree with your no-consensus conclusion. noq (talk) 13:23, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment My apologies if I violate voting policy. I have seen more experienced editors and admins done the same in a relist including yourself noq, hence the reason I revoted when it was relisted. Also noq, if you believed I breached voting policy, why didn't you say so in the second vote until now when it was raised by Pburka? Anyway, if I violate voting policy my apologies. Ignorance of the rules is no excuse. Thank you Pburka for striking them out.Tamsier (talk) 19:22, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep regardless of what one person thinks of my edit or posture it would be foolish to remove data that clearly defines a group that contributed to history. Merge perhaps but frankly speaking it is contrary to the spirit of Wiki to simply delete information that is a valuable part of history.--WPPilot 03:47, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Only one !vote each, please. Pburka (talk) 13:30, 21 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Merge to Stars & Stripes (yacht): For two reasons:
 * The design team fails the notability criteria as a group -- they designed this one boat together, they are not a team or company or anything that designs boats in general. Their group notability is part of the notability of the boat they built and cannot realistically be seen as a separate topic. Which you can also see in the article (sort of a combobulation of four biographies and a bit about the boat, rather than actually being about the group).
 * The article in fact is already part of Stars & Stripes (yacht). If you look at what is in the article apart form the biographical data, you cannot really read it without also reading Stars & Stripes (yacht). If this article were a piece of software, I'd say that the Law of Demeter applies in that the information in the article in fact wants to live in the Stars & Stripes (yacht) article rather than in this one. -- BenTels (talk) 12:35, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment What would you suggest can be merged that is not already in the yacht article? noq (talk) 13:34, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I would say, a little more detail about the people on the design team (enough to show that they were not a design bureau, because they sound like it in the yacht article). Some detailing of the role played by Scaled Composites and some details on the boat design. -- BenTels (talk) 22:10, 23 July 2012 (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.