Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inception (Yacht)

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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 00:37, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Inception (Yacht)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. This article is about a boat that capsized and everyone was safe and got some subsequent local media coverage. Primary editor's username indicates that he is the owner of the article's subject. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 09:10, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the article is about a boat that is the current subject of a major investigation, the subject of no less than 3 bravery awards. More citations are on the way and the entry was created as a starting point for what will be a pivot event in yacht safety around the world. I can add additional citations now, but would rather do so when some of the more formal findings are released. Furthermore, this entry adds to existing lightly populated categories and an extensive history of shipwrecks in the coast of Victoria Australia. It is my contention that this is a valuable entry that should be retained - it is notable. (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:50, 23 April 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:21, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, but I will change my vote if more sources are presented. Also, reporting for likely WP:COI violation.JoelWhy (talk) 18:57, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete The sinking is incidental and does not establish notability. It may be notable as the winner in a category of a major race, although I don't think there's much substantive coverage in this case. Happy to be proven wrong, of course, but I don't think a secondary category winner one year in this race establishes notability.--TeaDrinker (talk) 20:58, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS - no reason to suggest that this sinking was anything out of the ordinary or significant. SmartSE (talk) 19:57, 29 April 2012 (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.