Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tige Boats


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 04:16, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Tige Boats

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Speedied once for copyvio and spam. Recreated a second time without the copyvio material, and after a series of exchanges with the author via the hangon notice, the speedy (NN corp/ spam) was declined.

As it currently stands, this fails WP:CORP due to a lack of third party, non-trivial references. The majority of the sources listed by the author are press-releases, forums, and at least one link to a patent, with a single article that might qualify under WP:RS. Google only turns up product listings and some of the same press releases. Company has supposedly won two awards, but the only one I was able to verify was a web award for Tige's website design (not their product) that amounts to little more than two sentences about the company on the website in question. Other than this I see nothing that distinguishes this from any other small boat manufacturer. Methinks some community input would be a great help here, are there any other print sources we're unaware of? Mister Senseless&trade; (Speak - Contributions) 05:58, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment I fail to see how this page differs from other boat manufacturer pages i.e. Malibu Boats, Correct Craft, and Mastercraft Boats. The sources seemingly do not follow the guidelines you cover in this discussion. For instance the Malibu Boats page sites forums http://www.themalibucrew.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=18468 when they are explaining "The Wedge". Not only that but some of their "sources" can be deemed press releases i.e. http://malibuboats.blogspot.com/2008/11/wakeworldcom-added-vlx-credit-to-1260.html.  I understand that it is a blog via there corporate site, but none the less, it can also be viewed as a "press release". My point is that as the Tigé Boats page stands right now, I see no credible evidence to the fact that it is not appropriate for Wikipedia. It follows the same direction as the other boat manufacturers I have named, and all sources on the page are credible.

Now there are other printed sources that I can name if that will help in deeming Tigé Boats credible. Boating Industry Magazine wrote an Article "Eye of the Tigé" explaining how Tigé was founded and the new manufacturing plant among other other relevant information. The article can be found on the Tigé corporate website under the "downloads" section (http://www.tige.com/reviews/articles/Boating_Industry_Tige.pdf) I would site this article but I assume it would not comply with wikipedia rule/regulations.

You state that I have provided references that are non-trivial but I fail to see how newspaper articles are "non-trivial". Wikipedia states that they are credible secondary sources, "The "secondary sources" in the criterion include reliable published works in all forms, such as (for example) newspaper articles, books, television documentaries, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations". I think the article in Boating Industry would also follow under these guidelines.

As for awards, Tigé has accrued many industry awards but I was told that the sources I cited for those awards were not credible. I will research more to find the credible references in order to prove that Tigé is legit in the industry.

I appreciate you taking the time to listen and discuss. Thanks.Mlsizemore (talk) 15:45, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The issue as it currently stands is that only the newspaper article qualifies as a non-trivial, third party source, and this is questionable as it reads like a promotional piece. Regardless of whether that particular source is accepted or not by the community, more than one of these sources is needed (consensus says at least two.) Print sources, however, carry a much heavier weight in determining notability - since it generally accepted that there is a higher threshold to have an article on a subject published in a magazine or print newspaper (vs. only on a website). If you can reference a couple of these sources (magazine, date, issue number, and ISSN number if available) and they meet the requirements laid out in WP:V and WP:RS, this should be enough to satisfy WP:CORP. Let me know if I can help with the formatting for the citation. Mister Senseless&trade; (Speak - Contributions) 16:22, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much for your response and clarification of this issue. Yes I know of many other "print sources" available, but I will need some extra help with citing them properly. If you could provide an example for correctly citing a magazine article that would help.  Thanks for your continued help! Mlsizemore (talk) 16:47, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 04:52, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete No online sources have been found. Magazine sources don't look substantial. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 15:07, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Boating Industry Magazine, Trailer Boats Magazine, and Mechanical Engineering Magazine are not substantial sources? Please explain why these obviously substantial sources seem non-relevant to you? Also NMMA, Boating Life, Boats.com, and Boating Industry are not online sources? Please elaborate on your thoughts so I can more throughly understand why you want to delete this article.Mlsizemore (talk) 17:41, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Note the guideline on reliable sources defines a reliable source as "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". Do these magazines have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, or does it mainly serve as a vehicle for advertising? Having said that, the RS page also says "trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand." Boating Industry Magazine may be "trustworthy or authoritative" for the recreational boat industry, or it may not be. However, if Tige Boats is truly notable, why is it difficult to find coverage from 'better quality' news organizations, such as the New York Times?


 * Finally, be very careful if you have a conflict of interest, such as working for Tige Boats. Having a conflict of interest doesn't invalidate the discussion, but (in all fairness) should be stated clearly if you do have a COI. tedder (talk) 18:01, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Fair enough, I have tried hard to comply with Wikipedia standards when authoring the Tige Boats article by putting credible relevant sources in it. I made some mistakes when first trying to publish it because I did not do my full research. I apologize for that, but I have been working hard to understand and learn Wikipedia procedure. I have also tried to find good credible sources. Boating Industry magazine is a "trustworthy and authoritative source as it relates to the "subject at hand". Just because you assume this magazine is not of "better quality" or credible, that does not make your opinion correct. By your logic most articles on Wikipedia would not stand a chance of being notable due to the fact that they don't cite sources that are of the "quality" of the "New Your Times", Wall Street Journal", "Washington Post" ect. If that comes off as harsh I apologize, It is not meant to be mean just pointing something out.Mlsizemore (talk) 19:56, 5 March 2009 (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.