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 Keep - Notability established sufficient to pass WP:GNG via multiple, independent sources. Non-admin closure per WP:NAC #1. -- Hammersoft ( talk) 17:36, 17 January 2017 (UTC) reply

When and If (schooner)

When and If (schooner) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No claim of importance or Wp:notability, Cannot find any sources. ~ Junior5a (Talk) Cont 15:55, 10 January 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 02:43, 11 January 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep and clean-up. Being Patton's yacht is a claim of notability and I found sources within seconds, like an entire chapters in the books In the Spirit of Tradition: Old and New Classic Yachts and The Book of Wooden Boats, Volume 1. [1] [2] More coverage in a Patton biography. [3] I should note that nominating an article of a possibly notable topic only 6 minutes of article creation [4]is not helpful and is a case of WP:BITE. -- Oakshade ( talk) 03:24, 11 January 2017 (UTC) reply
Keep – @ Junior5a: https://www.stockislandmarina.com/blog/the-when-and-if-schooner/; http://www.oldsaltblog.com/2010/10/pattons-schooner-when-and-if-to-be-sold/; http://www.sandemanyachtcompany.co.uk/details/417/63-ft-John-Alden-Schooner-1939/yacht-for-sale/. I recently created an AfD on another one of @ Capt.J.W.King:'s articles but I withdraw it after seeing the light. His contributions, though unsourced, are significant enough for inclusion. Laurdecl talk 03:27, 11 January 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Enough said. -- do ncr am 06:23, 11 January 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Nördic Nightfury 09:13, 11 January 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I've been watching this since it was created, and I was skeptical at first, but per the current article and the sources above I'm personally satisfied. I would only add that since there is no current article for When and If, no disambiguation is necessary and the article should be moved over the redirect. TimothyJosephWood 11:24, 11 January 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Hold a proper wp:RM about the naming, please, and I'll watch but I'd appreciate being notified, too. The naming is appropriate as is, in my view, but I have seen a move or two recently done as you seem to prefer. It should be discussed but is not part of the AFD. -- do ncr am 12:15, 11 January 2017 (UTC) reply
I'm not sure it really needs an RM to simply follow the letter of WP:DAB. But I supposed if you want to take issue with it, then it does. TimothyJosephWood 13:02, 11 January 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 23:19, 13 January 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep in order to bolster my flagging AfD score, since this is a no-brainer. Chris Troutman ( talk) 01:11, 14 January 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - A number of good sources have been added since start of AfD, I think. Smmurphy( Talk) 22:17, 14 January 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, notable yacht. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 23:47, 14 January 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Comment -- The consensus above surprises me: I would not have thought that a yacht inherited notability from having belonged to a general. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:58, 15 January 2017 (UTC) reply
Peterkingiron: Erwin Schrödinger is notable, and so is his cat, but that's because the former popularized the latter, which was written about in its own right. TimothyJosephWood 18:24, 15 January 2017 (UTC) reply
I do not understand the relevance of that comment. The cat was part of a scientific argument. It struck me that this was a classic case of notability not being inherited. Paton was certainly notable, but that does not mean that his yacht was, but as there was a clear consensus to keep, I refrained from voting delete ( as I might have done). Peterkingiron ( talk) 18:39, 15 January 2017 (UTC) reply
If people write about the thing-in-itself because of the (non-WP) notability of the thing it is related to, then the notability (in the WP sense) is imparted, if not inherited, because the ability to meet GNG is imparted. If you're worried about AfD stats, then stats be damned. If you think it should be deleted, then vote a principled delete. I've often seen a principled and well reasoned if minority delete turn a keep into a non-consensus. Stats, like hats, are not what we're here for. TimothyJosephWood 16:36, 16 January 2017 (UTC) reply
I was only questioning notability, not verifiability; and I am clearly in a minority. I am intentionally not opposing keeping. Peterkingiron ( talk) 19:07, 15 January 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Just to be clear, my keep !vote was because there is sufficient coverage to this topic and the connection to Patton just adds to and is a claim of notability, something that the nom claimed was nonexistent. -- Oakshade ( talk) 20:51, 15 January 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/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/When_and_If_(schooner)&oldid=1138724936"