Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/I Dynasty

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. (non-admin closure) — Music1201 ^talk 22:40, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I Dynasty[edit]

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

No evidence in any of these articles of meeting WP:GNG. Large reliance on a single specialty publication (http://www.superyachtcompany.com/) of dubious journalistic value. Creator has removed PRODs from some without improvement or comment. —swpb^T 14:03, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. —swpb^T 14:41, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For all mentioned yachts I have found additional sources, and I added them to the corresponding articles. I hope this is enough to take them off this list. 102Legobrick (talk) 18:24, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

These new sources do deserve to be properly checked out to see if any of them are reliable, but the first few I looked at didn't seem very strong. —swpb^T 18:38, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

May I ask which were the ones you looked at, so that I can adjust them correctly or replace them with others. 102Legobrick (talk) 19:06, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First, they seem to be commercial pages, associated with the yacht builders themselves, which makes them not independent. What you really need is press coverage from reliable news organizations. Are any of these yachts know for anything other than being owned by someone famous? —swpb^T 19:34, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I changed some of the sources. Would you like check them again? 102Legobrick (talk) 20:27, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This AfD seems to be of personal opinion about the notability of yachts. Many megayachts are in fact very notable. For example, for Royal Romance (yacht), it only took a few seconds to find secondary coverage by secondary sources. [1][2][3] By the noms opening comments about the one dubious source it seems WP:BEFORE wasn't followed.--Oakshade (talk) 23:33, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:21, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:17, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I acknowledge the sourcing weaknesses and the possibility that these articles are just advertising, but I do think that there is strong encyclopedic value in these articles. We have probably already missed the opportunity to write about most of the superyachts that have existed so capturing this info now about an important genre of vessel is a worthwhile addition to the encyclopedia. I note also that superyachts are invariably highly customised so each one is different. Philafrenzy (talk) 22:31, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:BEFORE does indeed apply. These 60m+ yachts invariably have significant coverage, and each one is built and/or interior designed to a unique spec. Edwardx (talk) 22:48, 1 May 2016 (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.