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. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 10:50, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ducky catamarans[edit]

Ducky catamarans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Looks quite promotional, Google search found no evidence of notability. Only source is the company website. TheManInTheBlackHat (Talk) 15:19, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. TheManInTheBlackHat (Talk) 15:19, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products, Transportation, and Ukraine. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:53, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 15:55, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I could not find any RS either. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 16:35, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What other sources should there be if we are talking about a specific product? Ducky19r (talk) 16:36, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Product reviews in a national newspaper, a critical review of the company's products, an extensive company history published by a third-party, a documentary film about the company. Something to show notability. Oaktree b (talk) 20:13, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do you really think that national newspapers are called to publish product reviews of various companies? Maybe you meant specialized magazines? I think I won't reveal the secret that articles about products in magazines are often written in cooperation with the manufacturer. By what criteria will you determine whether an article is advertising? In fact, any mention of the products of a particular brand is indirect advertising. So how is the Hobby Cat article different from many other products on the Wiki? I can agree with the fact that the article could have an inappropriate appearance, and I was just working on its design and it did not yet have a final appearance. I'm not a confident Wiki user, and I've been experimenting with the design. In this case, it is worth simply pointing out what was inappropriate. Ducky19r (talk) 08:58, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You surprise me. Although, maybe it was me who wrongly imagined the essence of the Wiki as an encyclopedia. Ducky19r (talk) 09:36, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

They do yes, we have product reviews all the time from newspapers. There is nothing showing this company has gained the level of notability needed for Wikipedia. See the article about Coca-Cola or Volvo Penta for the examples of coverage needed for companies here. Oaktree b (talk) 16:35, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wanted to create an article about catamarans like this - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hobie_Cat Ducky19r (talk) 16:44, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That could probably be deleted as well to be honest, it also looks promotional. Oaktree b (talk) 20:14, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You surprise me. Although, maybe it was me who wrongly imagined the essence of the Wiki as an encyclopedia. Ducky19r (talk) 09:59, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We have notability standards, a small company making boats in Ukraine might be notable, but we need sources talking it about it at length. Simply existing as a corporate enterprise doesn't make them notable here. Oaktree b (talk) 16:36, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete This PROMO, we aren't here to help you sell your product. I can't find any references other than to Duck boats. Could even speedy delete this. Oaktree b (talk) 20:13, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  You didn't see the other links because I didn't have time to finish the article. And this - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hobie_Cat and many other brands you help sell? Or only the chosen ones?

  In general, I am here as a person for whom these catamarans are a hobby and a part of life. I thought that Wiki is a kind of "people's encyclopedia" where you can learn about the issue that interests you and that my information contribution will also be useful. Although it seems that few people are interested in this here. Strange and sad. Ducky19r (talk) 09:32, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  If this is to be kept you would need to strip out the promotional language, and prove that the company is notable. Neither of those seem forthcoming. TheInsatiableOne (talk) 14:01, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - If you removed the egregious WP:PROMO then there wouldn't be anything left. Company is non-notable besides. --TheInsatiableOne (talk) 13:58, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: once again, a number of users have decided that this company is 'clearly non-notable' without even making a cursory attempt to research sources in relevant languages. This is bad practice, and it hurts Wikipedia. If you are going to do this, why even bother participating in AfD? For your convenience, here is the relevant coverage of Ducky catamarans I was able to find in Ukrainian and Russian.
  • Review of Ducky models in a Ukrainian watersports magazine
  • Article on catamarans by a Carpathian tourism website which recommends Ducky as a local producer of catamarans
  • Review and comparison of catamarans on a Russian hobbyist website which mentions Ducky extensively
  • Article about Ducky catamarans in a Ukrainian local newspaper
  • Extensive review of a Ducky catamaran on a Russian blog
  • Entry for Ducky catamarans in an index of companies making products in Ukraine

AfD works on the principle of consensus, not direct democracy. So far, there can be no consensus, because only one party involved appears to have spent more than 2 seconds researching the topic at hand. I would ask those more familiar with the notability guidelines than me to take a look at the above sources and evaluate them on their own merits, rather than adding to the dogpile above. Thanks, Akakievich (talk) 16:57, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

to be fair, most users can't read Ukrainian, that's why we discuss the article in AfD, we're trying to get multiple viewpoints and from different languages if needed. Oaktree b (talk) 12:06, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Blogs aren't acceptable, government directories aren't acceptable, a tourism website would be promotional and a hobbyist website would not qualify as a reliable source. The magazine and the local newspaper could likely be acceptable. Oaktree b (talk) 12:08, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I'd also like to add that although the user who created this article does not appear to be familiar with Wikipedia best practices, we should still try and work with them, and use their knowledge to determine whether this article meets notability guidelines. Statements like we aren't here to help you sell your product assume bad faith and are out of place on Wikipedia. Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers! Akakievich (talk) 17:10, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Even with the new sources, it's still largely PROMO and not meeting GNG. Beyond proof they exist, there isn't critical notice of the company or their products. Oaktree b (talk) 15:28, 4 May 2023 (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.