Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bering Yachts

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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:14, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bering Yachts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Previously tagged for CSD two years ago [1] but the CSD was declined. Fails WP:ORGCRIT and may be an advert masquerading as an article. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:54, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:54, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:28, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Weak keep: There are two seemingly independent sources that discuss the company in some detail while reporting on the launch of a new product line. They are probably reliable sources, because they're trade publications with editorial oversight, and they seem to be basically independent, because they're not just parroting the same press release. --Slashme (talk) 07:48, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Slashme which two sources? If the articles are based on press releases, they still fail WP:ORGIND... HighKing⁺⁺ 18:33, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • The SuperyachtNews article doesn't seem to be a simple regurgitation of a press release: it has some journalistic input and context. I thought at first that the YachtHarbour article was also independent, but I'm not quite sure any more. --Slashme (talk) 14:27, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I started editing the article only yesterday, background is my growing interest for various kinds of maritime transport. Bering seems to be one of the leading makers of serious ocean going yachts. My plan is to extend the article based on various sources of the relevant trade press.Sekundogenitur (talk) 18:02, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Weak Delete I am unable to locate a single source that meets the criteria for establishing notability. None of the sources in the article meet the criteria. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:33, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update On a reread, the SuperyachtNews article mentioned by Slashme above might just about pass the requirements for establishing notability. Counting that as one reference the, we still need another reference in order to meet the criteria for establishing notability (minimim two required). HighKing⁺⁺ 15:47, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

HighKing, the number of sources is not so important. It's the quality of the sources that counts. Two sources do not make a promotional piece a legitimate Wikipedia article. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:31, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree (kinda). Just to clarify. NCORP states that "multiple" sources are required so we know the number > 1. Also, it isn't just the volume of sources (where any ol' source counts) but sources that "meet the criteria" for establishing notability. Therefore, in my opinion, if there are two sources available that meet the criteria for establishing notability, this meets the criteria for multiple sources. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:10, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete as G11. It disappoints me when I see administrators fail to recognise promotional content for what it is, which occurred in this case when the first speedy deletion nomination was declined. This is unambiguous promotion. All the article does is present a brief history of the company and a one-sided explanation of the products it sells. Even if it were not for G11 I would doubt notability. Superyachtnews is clearly one of those trade magazines that derives revenue solely by attracting advertisers through writing uncritical articles about products in the relevant market. It is not a reliable source, and certainly not when we're trying to write neutral non-promotional articles. When wikipedia uses and relies on that PR stuff it simply become an extension of it. --Mkativerata (talk) 02:02, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Although I think trade magazines can occasionally be reliable and independent sources for determining notability, it looks like the sources from SuperyachtNews and YachtHarbour are primarily based on marketing materials, even if they were reliable and independent, I don't think their coverage is significant enough to confer notability alone. The other sources are primary. - Scio c (talk) 23:43, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. This is little more than promotional cruft. -The Gnome (talk) 08:07, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.