Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yves Sansoucy


 * 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. Tone 07:36, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Yves Sansoucy

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Poorly sourced BLP of a sailboat designer, and an equally poorly sourced article about his company. They've basically been lashed together into a self-fulfilling notability loop, because the only notability claim even being attempted in either article is its topic's association with the other topic (i.e. "this company is notable because it's owned by a guy who's notable because he owns this company") — and neither article shows even the first hint of any reliable source coverage, with the only "sources" being the company's own self-published website about itself and the organizational blog for the non-notable fan club of his company's products. Which means there are no reliable or notability-making sources present in either article, and nothing stated in either article is "inherently" notable enough to exempt them from having to get over WP:GNG and/or WP:CORPDEPTH on the sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 19:56, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:56, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:56, 11 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete All I could find was a couple of trademark entries. No SIGCOV.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 20:34, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete - Does not meet notability criteria. Netherzone (talk) 12:23, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Improve - Surely there is some kind of Canadian, boating, or historical interest group who this article could be passed to to identify further sources? I added this article in good faith, along with many others, during a period of interest in multihull boat research. So much of that information was hard to find, and of course hard to source. Much of the literature is offline due to its popular literature nature (local boat magazines, etc.) and pre-internet. It would be a better result to pass the article on to interested / motivated people to extend instead of just throwing it out. But throw it out if you will. I think it is such a shame that so much of Wikipedia is falling away to this sort of policy. What is the benefit? Essentially there is none. No cost to host a page and wait for an interested soul. Deletion should be a last resort. prat (talk)
 * We happily host pages who meet the WP:N notability requirement. We do not host pages that do not meet the notability requirement.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 18:34, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * While articles can be kept and flagged for referencing improvement if better, more notability-supporting sources are demonstrated to exist to improve it with, we do not keep poorly sourced articles just because somebody speculates that maybe better sources might exist even though nobody has actually found them. You have to show hard evidence that the article is improvable, by searching for better sources and showing what you found, before improvability becomes a valid argument against deletion. Bearcat (talk) 15:36, 16 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete both as WP:NOTPROMOTION, have been unable to find anything that suggests notability ie. awards, reviews. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:21, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - to prat, I appreciate these obscure niche areas, but the article as it stands has so very little to go on. If there were a few reliable sources, or as mentioned above, awards, reviews, historical documents, etc, to support the notability of the subject, you may be able to turn this AfD around. Netherzone (talk) 20:30, 16 November 2019 (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.