Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Swan 48 Mk III

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. ✗plicit 00:18, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Swan 48 Mk III

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Subject fails GNG. My redirect to Swan 48 Frers was reverted. A BEFORE search revealed websites selling boats but nothing to connote notability. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:53, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:53, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Chris,

This is a strange view point I only created the article as I responsible for the other 30+ model of Swan pages. Having said that there are 1000s of sailboat type much less article including pretty much ever one created over the last couple of months by other members.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Sailing/New_articles

Let me look at the page referencing because that isn't good and it was wikipedia common page suggesting merging the 48Mk1, mk2 and mk3 that lead to me creating this page. The boat needs separate pages as it requires separate wikidata pages due to the differing statistic.

User:Yachty4000 2022-07-17 00:30 Yachty4000 (talk) 23:33, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:23, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of notability and "needs separate pages as it requires separate wikidata pages" is a ridiculous rationale for existing. We shouldn't be driven by the needs of Wikidata. If that project has any purpose at all, it is to support the encyclopaedias. It should certainly not be determining our content. If Wikidata can't deal with the way our articles are organised there is a problem that needs fixing on that project, not here. SpinningSpark 22:14, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of notability; a BEFORE search revealed no notability-conferring sources. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 20:56, 28 July 2022 (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.