Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hurricane (hovercraft)
From 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 delete. Satisfactory sources were not found, probability that they exist not enough to satisfy notability and verification guidelines. — OcatecirT 20:24, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Hurricane (hovercraft)
I don't see how this craft is notable (craft, not cruft). Orphaned for a few months as well. Kwsn(Ni!) 15:20, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:52, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:52, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - How many were built? This article is perhaps a weak keep. It needs to the Wikified and to have sources cited. It is probably only a stub, but need not be so non-notable that it should be deleted.
- Keep. It appears to be a real craft. It seems that it might have some standing in the history of personal hovercraft development. Per above, though, if only like ten were built, then maybe not. Herostratus 02:12, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. Certified by USCG and a unique configuration. Also of historical interest. Dhaluza 16:05, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
- Keep and improve 'cuz it's spiffy -- I want one!--Mike18xx 02:46, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
- Delete no assertion of notability. The Filmaker 18:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Notability would require secondary sources, but none are given. --B. Wolterding 10:38, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
- Comment are you saying you doubt they exist, or are you objecting to the fact they were not cited. Unfortunately due to the historical nature of this, there are no online sources--I only found this blog post: [1] which is probably not suitable as a reference to add to the article. But paper sources probably exist, and deleting it presents a catch-22 as someone who has them won't know we need them if the article is deleted. Since there is no reason to believe the content is bogus, I think we can safely keep this and wait for improvement. Dhaluza 10:51, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
- Well, the point is: I do not know of any sources, since the article doesn't list any. It's the responsibility of the editor to add sources that establish notability. (Otherwise, how should others verify?) The mere probability that sources exist is certainly not enough to pass WP:CORP. The article has existed since several months, and no sources have been provided. But of course it can be userfied and recreated once reliable secondary sources have been found. --B. Wolterding 11:02, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
- Comment are you saying you doubt they exist, or are you objecting to the fact they were not cited. Unfortunately due to the historical nature of this, there are no online sources--I only found this blog post: [1] which is probably not suitable as a reference to add to the article. But paper sources probably exist, and deleting it presents a catch-22 as someone who has them won't know we need them if the article is deleted. Since there is no reason to believe the content is bogus, I think we can safely keep this and wait for improvement. Dhaluza 10:51, 19 June 2007 (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.
