Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yacht delivery

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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:36, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yacht delivery

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

Large sections of the article are copied from other web pages, the two of the three sources are linking to for-profit organizations (one referencing a cost estimate page by a specific company), 2/3rds of the article has no sources at all (specifically Licensing and Incidents), only one link to this page is not in regards to warnings for malicious editing (largely self-promoting edits). There is no indication that this topic is notable Human.v2.0 (talk) 16:25, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No evidence is provided to support the allegations above. In any case, such problems are best dealt with by ordinary editing per our editing policy. The topic is certainly notable as we have significant coverage in good works such as The Encyclopedia of Tourism and Recreation in Marine Environments or The Adlard Coles Book of Mediterranean Cruising. Andrew (talk) 18:30, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Opening segment is directly copied from here. Ref 1 is to an organization that runs training centers, the wiki for which is also dubious (there are no sources given for the article itself, references are just given for regional branches, and I don't see any google hits that show more than it exists). Ref 2 is decidedly just "a company who does this". These are the only sources used outside of the intro; the rest of the article has no references and there is very much original research. There is a total of one link from another wiki page, (almost) all other links involve malicious editing or this AfD. And frankly, neither of those books constitute "significant coverage" as they are both a few paragraphs that pretty much say "there are companies who do this".Human.v2.0 (talk) 19:02, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The website page that you link to as the putative copyright owner is dated 2013 but the corresponding text in this article was created in 2009 - over five years ago. This indicates that the website got their text from us rather than vice versa - a case of backwards copying.

As for the training organisation, are you talking about the RYA - the Royal Yachting Association? They are a reputable and reliable source on the topic, being the main source of expertise and accreditation in this field. They seem comparable to a university or professional institution for this topic.

As for the other sources, as they provide paragraphs of information then this is adequate content per WP:SIGCOV.

Andrew (talk) 21:17, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Evidence of backwards copying should be noted and listed, but this is not an unsourced BLP and is capable of plenty of improvement. It appears that WP:BEFORE wasn't done and the issue was more that some site copied from Wikipedia. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:01, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, could I get some commentary on the general lack of sources (keeping in mind that as of this edit, which is relatively unchanged from the current, there were no valid sources). Between RYA and the two books mentioned, even with creative sourcing 95% of it is on the chopping board.Human.v2.0 (talk) 20:26, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a pile of incoherent unnotable rubbish. Op47 (talk) 21:15, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:42, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 17:55, 11 September 2014 (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.