Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Soverel 33


 * 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 keep‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Liz Read! Talk! 07:23, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Soverel 33

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Single reference is a 404 error to a database. Fails the general and product-specific notability policies. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:46, 3 October 2023 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 15:04, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. UtherSRG (talk) 14:46, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep: Gbooks has enough coverage to verify the specs, from a period magazine, this is a discussion of the boat under the rather hopeful title of "Stocking Stuffers". Should be ok. Oaktree b (talk) 15:23, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm surprised at your !vote, Oaktree. Specs are just a listing, so not WP:SIGCOV, and the discussion is also failing that quality. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:26, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * It does have two full pages of specs, they seem rather detailed, I'd consider them significant coverage. Oaktree b (talk) 15:33, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Keep per the above sources and these additional newspaper sources:
 * I'd expect additional coverage to be available in specialty periodicals of the period, which are unlikely to be accessible online. Jfire (talk) 22:37, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I'd expect additional coverage to be available in specialty periodicals of the period, which are unlikely to be accessible online. Jfire (talk) 22:37, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I'd expect additional coverage to be available in specialty periodicals of the period, which are unlikely to be accessible online. Jfire (talk) 22:37, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I'd expect additional coverage to be available in specialty periodicals of the period, which are unlikely to be accessible online. Jfire (talk) 22:37, 10 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep. Sailboatdata (the only refrence in the article) is not reliable. However, the sources found by Jfire leads me to vote keep. -- Mike 🗩 17:38, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep - sources found by Jfire. The stub can be improved and I hope that someone adds the sources. Lightburst (talk) 21:03, 11 October 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.