Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Merritt Boat & Engine Works

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. The Land 11:15, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merritt Boat & Engine Works

Delete as advertisement/spam. I initially nominated this for speedy, but I retracted it after more content was added. The additional content killed justification for speedy, but its still just an ad. Bugturd Talk 00:32, 31 January 2006 (UTC) Changing vote to abstain in agreement with unsigned comment below. The article has definitely improved. --Bugturd Talk 01:24, 31 January 2006 (UTC) Changing vote back to delete since it appears that the article is to be a list as per WP:NOT comments below. --Bugturd Talk 01:58, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

• My response:
• This is not an ad, they are not selling any thing. The article is about a famous classic manufacturer of sportfishing boats, best known for its work in the 50's and 60's. There are countless articles written about them, entire online discussion forums dedicated to discussing them with thousands of messages posted daily and hundreds of photographs, etc. The article is just getting started, you should not delete this article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Angusdavis (talk • contribs) 01:00 31 January 2006.

• Then you should you make that case in the article by writing an encyclopedia article, instead of (as it appears you are doing) creating a catalog of every boat Merritt has ever built. That level of detail WILL be deleted and condensed by subsequent editors, so you best not invest the time in doing so. For the moment keep -- as long as it doesn't degenerate into list of boatcruft ("The 1963 models, as opposed to the 1962 models, began using mahogany instead of teak for the cabin trim..."). --Calton | Talk 01:24, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete Wikipedia is not a list. If the article turns into a "why Merritt is notable" (as Angusdavis purports it is), then keep. If it stays as a list, delete. --M@thwiz2020 01:28, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Merritt Boat & Engine Works is a notable boat company. However, the current artical needs to be re-focused on the busness. (Signed: J.Smith) 02:39, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, but rewrite, beacuse right now, it's borderline boatcruft, and a list. -- Jjjsixsix ^(talk)/_(contribs) @ 04:01, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and rewrite. -ryan-d 12:55, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, send it for cleanup. It's pretty clear that there's some historical interest here; the article needs to be focused on that. -Ikkyu2 17:47, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment no strong opinion either way on the inclusion of this article, but it needs a rewrite if it stays. As it stands the article is part list and part poorly written history. I'd take a crack at it, but I get sick on boats, so I've just added a cleanup tag.--Isotope23 18:23, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, BUT get rid of the list of boats, except for those which have some significance. Boats as far as I am aware, are just private possessions like cars. I bet you we couldn't find a single Wikipedia editor who would think that the encyclopaedia should contain a list of all car registration numbers with details of their first owner, even if we could find that information out. At risk of breaching WP:AGF, I have to ask, does the author have a commercial interest in this particular boatyard? How else would they know who bought each boat? Or are boats required to be registered in a public register under U.S. law? If they DO have a commerical connection and there is no such registration requirement, this seems like an unbelievable breach of commerical confidentiality. Rant rant rant. Sorry. SP-KP 20:49, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and, there are a number of Yachts which are individually notable out there in the world (due to manufacturer, owner, specific characteristics, history, design example of something, etc). Whether these particular yachts are sufficiently notable or not is an open question, but I suggest letting the article editors work that out over time. Standards will prevail. No reason to delete or apply premature chainsaw effort to the article. Georgewilliamherbert 01:12, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Data on boat ownership for boats that are or have been federally documented by the USCG is a matter of public record, so there is no confidentiality issue here. I am the author and I am an enthusiast of these boats as are many other folks. Feel free to delete the article or edit it as you see fit. In its defense, I will say that if magazine articles have been written about the history of these boats, tracking down each one, etc., it is silly to say it is not appropriate. For example, if Sinclair had built only 10 computers, would it not be appropriate to document the provenance of those computers, who owned them, how they were used, etc.? Anyway, it was just a quick attempt at an article. I came here after reading about the congressional staffers abusing the system and I decided to try for myself to create my first article by writing about something on which I had some very unique and deep knowledge. I agree the writing is poor and could be improved. The unique contribution I have made here is the research. Do with it what you will. --Angusdavis 01:57, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • For example, if Sinclair had built only 10 computers, would it not be appropriate to document the provenance of those computers, who owned them, how they were used, etc.? Nope. And you listed 25 boats, none of which seem particularly distinctive for reason of ownership, history, precedence, or technological or design advances; nor as exemplars of any trend in boatbuilding design evolution. What the list and its content (generally) is, to put it bluntly, trivia. (Besides, if Sinclair had built only 10 computers, I doubt they'd get an article here to begin with.)
  • This site is an encyclopedia, a digest of knowledge, acting as an introduction to or overview of subjects. Writers should put in the article what's most important, distinctive, and telling for the layman: "Why are those boats worthy of an article?" is the question that you should be answering in the article, and leave the fine-grained detail for the specialist magazines and coffee-table books. --Calton | Talk 07:02, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. The debate here is about whether the article is to be deleted immediately, never to return. Debate on what the article should or should not contain should be directed to the article's talk page, as it is not relevant here. Ikkyu2 22:09, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Angusdavis presented his misconceptions regarding what is appropriate as an article period/full stop; I merely corrected them. If this bothers you, make use of that spacebar you can find at the bottom of your keyboard. --Calton | Talk 23:58, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

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.