Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Monohull Open Classes Association

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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.  Sandstein  08:48, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

International Monohull Open Classes Association

International Monohull Open Classes Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is completely unreferenced and it fails to signify why this association is

notable. -- Tavix (talk) 22:05, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
(talk) 22:20, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
It's definitely not as unconvincing as your comment. ;) I appreciate the
good faith though. -- Tavix (talk) 22:37, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 23:08, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Keep A quick
    WP:BEFORE would have shown a range of reliable sources in English, French, Portuguese, Russian, Greek... etc. (and also a referenced & sourced article in the Portuguese language Wikipedia). Exemplo347 (talk
    )
...and where might those sources be? They're certainly not in the article. -- Tavix (talk) 23:56, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear - I shouldn't have to explain
WP:BEFORE to an Admin & I'm not willing to do so because it'll make me sound like an ass. Exemplo347 (talk) 23:59, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
I know what BEFORE is, I just don't see evidence of notability. Those are two separate things. Proving notability by providing significant coverage in multiple, independent sources (preferably in the article) would go a long way to solving this problem. Until then, I stand by my nomination. -- Tavix (talk) 00:09, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, OK... Just by clicking on "Find Sources" at the top of this discussion I've found this, this, this, this, and in Books I found quite a few results. Honestly, there is so much coverage in such a wide range of sources that I'm quite surprised to be asked to do your leg-work for you. Exemplo347 (talk) 00:24, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't call it doing my legwork, I'm prodding you to formulate a "keep" !vote that has some meat to it. If you continue to do that, you'll be well on your way to "winning" more often. That being said, I have my doubts about those sources, but I appreciate the effort. Cheers, -- Tavix (talk) 01:06, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't need to be prodded - if a proper
WP:BEFORE had been done I wouldn't have had to show you that there are sources. Also, I don't think "winning" is an actual thing in AfD discussions. It's about policy, nothing more. Exemplo347 (talk) 01:50, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
It most certainly is about policy. That's why articles should have multiple references from independent, reliable sources showing significant coverage, per
WP:GNG. Anything less than that, and it should be deleted. -- Tavix (talk) 01:58, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
@
WP:GNG. I apologize if you feel I'm "sniping". -- Tavix (talk) 15:12, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | Talk 00:51, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've tried to search for sources since a couple of days. I've added two sources too to the article. However, I have not been able to find significant sources. This organization seems to be significant in oceanic sailing, and has even propounded the standards for some categories. But there's no significant coverage in reliable sources. I'll await responses from the editors who have mentioned keep, failing which, I would recommend a delete. Lourdes 13:39, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Additional note: The four sources provided by Exemplo347 are reviewed below by me:
All other comments of the keep !voters has been without any guideline basis. So it'll be good if someone can either quote a guideline or provide reliable sources. Because the only two sources in the article are the ones added by me; and there have been no other RS forwarded till now. Thanks. Lourdes 03:48, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deletion would be quite inappropriate because this is the governing body for a major class of racing yachts. Note that the main race for the class -- the
    policy. Andrew D. (talk) 13:06, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Hi Andrew. Thanks for the response. I understand what you're referring to and accept your point of the organization being significant (even I've mentioned the same in my statement). I started with the same viewpoint as yours (and in fact, in Afds, my first attempt is that only; perhaps the reason why I must be !voting keep a significant number of times). I would also accept that the competition is quite notable. But then, there are no sources at all covering the organization! I can on the other hand go the way schools or national political parties are kept at Afd, if you can guide me to some precedent documenting page (whether essay or guideline), which mentions that such organizations which run notable races/events are generally kept at Afds; I'll be more than pleased to withdraw my viewpoint thereon. Of if you can suggest similar organizations which have been kept at Afds, that too is acceptable. Other than that, I absolutely reject your suggestion that this is a crude, drive-by manner nomination at all. There are absolutely no significant sources covering the organization and the nominator is quite intelligent to have identified this organization. I respect your experience here and don't feel I should be arguing with you. Will await your links or examples of previously kept organizations. Thanks. Lourdes 13:15, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just for reference, in my view, this organization satisfies one part of the suggested two points in
    WP:NONPROFIT. Thanks. Lourdes 13:20, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Hi Onel5969, I've gone through all your sources. There's no source that talks about the organization. There are references to either the event that the organization holds, or to a yacht class the organization maintains standards for. Which source are you referring to for significant coverage of the organization? Also, which notability guideline would you be referring to, to keep the article? Thanks. Lourdes 19:07, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Lourdes - Forgive me, for the life of me, I can't link to the correct guideline/policy. I'm at work, and can't access the information until later tonight, but there is a guideline which says that when a topic is mentioned enough, even if they are all trivial mentions, the weight of the trivial mentions constitutes notability. I hadn't heard of it either, but learned of it through an AfD discussion a couple of years ago. I used to know it off the top of my head, but I'm not that active on AfD anymore, so this addled mind can't remember the acronym for it, so will have to go back to some of the AfD discussions where I voted keep and see if I can find it. Onel5969 TT me 19:22, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Onel5969. Sure. Take your time. Thanks for the response. Lourdes 19:24, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hello Onel5969, pinging you to request you for quoting the notability guideline. Also, none of your sources cover the workings of the organization. Would you consider withdrawing your keep !vote? Thanks and have a good day. Lourdes 03:20, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi
WP:BASIC - which I don't think applies in this case). Thanks for pinging again, as I am working on a couple of articles, and this wasn't my focus. But no, I don't think I'll remove my keep !vote. An organization which oversees the world championship, and who regulates the classes of the competing groups, in my opinion, is notable. Perhaps IAR applies here.Onel5969 TT me 03:27, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
I took a look at the nine sources cited above. Of them, four were in English, so I concentrated on those (not being in English doesn't mean the others aren't good sources, just that I'm not in a position to evaluate them very well):
In short, none of these meet
WP:SIGCOV. They are all what we call passing mentions. Some of the sources would be good references for other articles (i.e. IMOCA 60), but they don't justify an article on the association itself. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:51, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Comment
    WP:IAR. In my opinion, IAR should not be invoked unless there are egregious circumstances for the same. Thanks once more for the response. Have a good night. Cheers. Lourdes 05:16, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    @
    WP:IAR, which contains no "exceptional circumstances only" clause, but instead is phrased in deliberately general terms. Amisom (talk) 18:31, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 23:16, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The one line on IMOCA your source documents is a Letter to the Editor, and goes like this: "Around Alone was the catalyst for the development of sound rules, now recognized by the International Monohull Classes Association (IMOCA), which have produced the very fast yachts we see in around-the-world races today.". Letters to the editor are unacceptable as RS. And one line is absolutely not significant coverage. Is there something else you wanted to link? Because if you meant this link in reality, you need to first read up on what Wikipedia means by
    reliable sources before listing more sources. We're volunteers and it's an investment of time which should not be wasted. Ask me for any assistance if you don't understand the guidelines page. Thanks. Lourdes 17:38, 7 February 2017 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/International_Monohull_Open_Classes_Association&oldid=1086069744"