Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Westsail 32

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 of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 14:25, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Westsail 32[edit]

Originally prodded by me, and removed by page creator without comment. This is nothing more than a spamvertisement for a nn boat. The article doesn't even assert notability. Delete. --Hetar 03:06, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I dunno... if there were really 1100 sold that seems like a lot. Musicians are notable if they've sold 5000 albums, and surely a boat is worth several album-copies worth. If each boat cost $10,000, that would mean $11 million changing hands due to this thing. I'm not voting keep, though, because deletion seems intuitively reasonable. --Allen 03:15, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - Actually the classified ads on the net are advertising the things for over $50K. The boat seems notable enough, but the Worldcruiser link needs to go. It is not the manufacturer of the boat, but is conveniently enough a supplier of replacement parts for it. Montco 03:27, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Prodding the article one minute after its first edit and sending it to AfD after 30 minutes, without talking to the editor, is one heckuva way to welcome new editors to the encyclopedia. Thatcher131
Keep; we tend to consider production models of automobiles, aircraft, and boats to be notable. Any advert/vanity issues can be dealt with by cleanup. MCB 06:47, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. (Disclosure — I own one... ;-)
1. This is not a spamvertisement — the boat hasn't been in production since 1978 (I think).
2. The Westsail 32 is one of the most, if not the most, notable production fibreglass cruising boats ever made. It spawned countless imitations, and led to a massive revival of the "double-ended" Archer-Atkins hull style.
3. It sold 800 copies in just a few years which is phenomenal for a large cruising boat (even 30-year-old used copies are selling for $50,000 - $60,000, so more than a few albums' worth), and I don't know if it's ever been equalled.
4. It's probably the one boat that every cruiser would consider the "ultimate" cruising boat, in terms of being "the original", slow, stodgy, but absolutely seaworthy world cruising boat.
5. They're bloody beautiful! (OK a bit pf POV creeping in there... ;-)
Seriously, please don't make judgements about notability of this article without consulting some sailors, particularly cruising types. Do we have an article on the Rolls-Royce Silver Shadow? On the Chevrolet Corvette? In the cruising world, this boat is more famous than that. The article needs expansion, obviously, but we don't delete articles just for being stubs. — Johan the Ghost _seance 16:26, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Outraged comment: You put the article on AfD after 30 minutes because of non-notability???? Is this Wikipedia policy now? Haven't you ever heard of giving people a chance to put some text in? I for one have about a million pictures of Westsail 32's in Nicaragua, the Panama Canal, etc., that I can add -- if I get the chance. — Johan the Ghost _seance 16:31, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you're outraged by this you shouldn't look at the edit histories of any other articles on AfD, you might pop a blood vessel. But this is probably a discussion for another time and place. Thatcher131 16:38, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know there are many articles that deserve an instant AfD — the point here is AfD because 30 minutes wasn't enough time for the author to demonstrate notability. — Johan the Ghost _seance 17:15, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The AfD discussion is your opportunity to prove notability. Personally, I would have contacted the creator first on what looks like a borderline issue, but I can't fault an instant AfD of something that looks like non-notable advertising. —Cuivi é nen, Thursday, 20 April 2006 @ 00:39 UTC

Keep Promising little article. CalJW 02:03, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand, obviously, but it's notable per precedent and production volume and impact in yachting. Georgewilliamherbert 21:01, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've added some text; it still needs a lot of work, but I think there's the skeleton of a good article there now. — Johan the Ghost _seance 23:10, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Boat is notable. Englishrose 11:49, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article looks better now. As far as "outrage", articles should be created and filled with cites and such in user space and then moved to article space. This lessens the likelyhood of PROD and AFD. —-- That Guy, From That Show! ^(esperanza) 2006-04-21 13:55
That's a valid idea -- I tend to do it that way myself -- but how is a newcomer supposed to know this? Wikipedia:Your first article doesn't mention it. Telling newbies to Be Bold then slapping their first effort with an AfD after 30 minutes seems like a bit of mixed messages. (Note that the person who added the cites -- me -- isn't the person who created the article.) — Johan the Ghost _seance 15:07, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a valid article. This is a notable class of keelboats. If we delete this article then there are another 100+ articles which would need to be deleted for the same invalid reasoning. Boatman 19:07, 23 April 2006 (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.