Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clyde 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 no consensus. Black Kite (t) (c) 11:30, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clyde Boats

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

Completely unsourced. No assertion of notability. Searches at the Center for Wooden Boats and WoodenBoat Magazine come up blank. Elen of the Roads came up with this link that suggests that the primary contributor sourced the whole thing to interviews with his mother, who worked for the company for 20 years. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:00, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:29, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of notability in article, no sources found except the non-RS forum thread linked above, fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. I'm quite surprised that Elen of the Roads declined the speedy, in fact. Yunshui (talk) 21:12, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ The article is charming, personal, and well-written, (doesn't that almost make it notable?!) but nothing like a WP article. It could be rescued by someone who has access to verifiable facts about Clyde Boats. I wish I did. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:17, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I declined the speedy - in the (probably forlorn) hope that someone out there has access to back copies of some small wooden boat hobby magazine or something, with evidence of notability within that community. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:13, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

for what it's worth, i think you were right to decline the speedy, as the article does make a number of (unsourced) assertions of the notability of the subject. whether it's notable isn't clear to me yet.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 22:19, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 22:56, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. —— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 22:59, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no references, fails WP:N. A search turns up lots of sources, all mirrors of this article! - Ahunt (talk) 23:38, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All the search results for "Clyde Boats" seem to be talking about old steamer boats, small fishing boats that carry five men, boats that are used to stop rum runners, and other results. I'll keep looking, but its hard to find any mention at all, if it does exist, with so many wrong hits to sort through. Dream Focus 16:32, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A book titled Lake Orion By James E. Ingram, Lori Grove mentions it briefly[1] "In the distance, a smaller motorboat travels past, which was likely a Clyde outboard runabout then common on Lake Orion. Their molded plywood hulls were built by fishermen in Nova Scotia during the winter and shipped to dealers like Clyde Boats in nearby Detroid." So, these were common on that lake in their time. Dream Focus 16:40, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, most of the sources are talking about Clyde puffers, which are notable. Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:04, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[2] here they are in a Michigan manufacturers' directory, but that's all I can find. Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:18, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Neutral~~Keep - This might be one of those sad cases where a subject is in fact notable, but that notability cannot be verified (an unusual inversion from the usual order of things on Wikipedia!). Clearly Cyde Boats were popular runabouts way back when, but are more or less forgotten now. Were that the information sources we had now always available! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:45, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - well, Elen of the Roads and others have found books and photos on the web of Clyde Boats; we are agreed the article is notable and well-written, and we do in fact have some reliable documented 3rd-party evidence for that notability. Could we perhaps use an image of the 16-foot Clyde boat from the Bone Yard Boats site with a NFUR? But I suggest we already have enough to justify saving this excellent article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:01, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"we do in fact have some reliable documented 3rd-party evidence for that notability" I'm not seeing this. We've got a forum post (not RS), a passing mention in Ingram's Lake Orion, a directory listing (not RS) and a couple of photos. I'm sorry, but I can't see how these imply notability. Existence is verifiable, but ITEXISTS is not an argument for retention. Yunshui (talk) 11:56, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nor are we arguing that. With The Bushranger, I believe the article is clearly notable, and the challenge has been to verify, or at least show capability of verification (e.g. by visiting public libraries and other archives in Michigan...); since we agree on existence, the article should not be deleted. There will be scope for improving it and gathering further evidence and images thereafter, which will take time and effort. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:40, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I'm being a little dense, but I really cannot see anything in the article that makes a case for notability. According to WP:NOTE, notable topics are "...those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time." Beyond immediate local interest, there seems to be no claim that Clyde Boats was ever attended to by the world at large, let alone any evidence for such. As a company, they fall under WP:ORG, and for better or worse, that guideline requires "significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources" to confer notability - which is precisely what we don't have here. For what it's worth, I agree with you that the article is a nice piece of work, but it's pretty and I like it aren't arguments for retention. Yunshui (talk) 07:05, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral - or, keep but only as a stub. We apparently have reliable evidence that the company existed, in Detroit, and made small wooden outboard motorboats with hulls from Nova Scotia. Adjusting for the fact that it's sometimes hard to find material (particularly on line) about things that passed from existence decades ago, I could be persuaded that the limited RSs we have are sufficient to establish basic notability; but the rest of the article is either the personal reminiscence of the author's mother or unreliably sourced and hasn't any place here. JohnInDC (talk) 11:12, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:N. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:39, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comment—i managed to lay my hands on an actual paper copy of Classic American runabouts: wood boats, mentioned in the further reading section of the article. sadly, it mentions neither the company nor Clyde Rumney. so there's no failure of search in google books there.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 19:12, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We're really scraping the bottom of the barrel here as far as significant coverage in reliable sources goes. Hardly surprising for what was little more than a local or regional boatbuilder. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:44, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, causa sui (talk) 17:16, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I see passing references, and mention in an online boat sales site. Nothing so far to satisfy WP:ORG. Not every small business is notable. Edison (talk) 18:53, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree thoroughly with what is said above, But I suggest we already have enough to justify saving this excellent article. Chiswick Chap (talk)--DThomsen8 (talk) 01:53, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just barely enough, but barely enough=enough. I wouldn't have said keep at the earlier state of the article. DGG ( talk ) 01:57, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Didn't comment before, but yeah, its fine. There is no valid reason to eliminate this article. Hard to find sources from that time period that are available online, but some mentions here and there do exist. Remember the spirit of the rules, not the letter of the law, should be followed, and I doubt they were created to eliminate articles like this. Dream Focus 02:40, 25 October 2011 (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.