Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WoodenBoat

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 consensus to keep and redirect. Johnleemk | Talk 11:36, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] WoodenBoat and WoodenBoat Forum

Promotional. No evidence of notability. Does not even give address of the forum's website. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 18:40, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

• Yes, the WoodenBoat forum page is simply a lark, and should probably be deleted. However, the original link (to WoodenBoat) is serious and should be kept (though edited and amplified).
  • Unsigned comment by 209.195.116.184. - Mike Rosoft 18:54, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, well, keep WoodenBoat and redirect WoodenBoat Forum to it. And expand. I have the impression that WoodenBoat Magazine and the associated boatbuilding school are very significant in the world of wooden boat building. Which is not a very large world, I admit, but it's more than a few people. FreplySpang (talk) 20:28, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Keep Please - "Wooden Boat" was a seminal publication at the start of an international trend to appreciate our small craft maritime heritage anyone who has ever read "Swallows and Amazons" or "Sailing Alone Around the World" might have an interest in this.

• Keep, precisely per Freply. rodii 22:40, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Keep, please; and add a link to this entry from the entry at Brooklin, Maine which references WoodenBoat Magazine.

You can add that link yourself! "Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." Also, please sign your edits here by adding four tildes at the end, thanks. rodii 01:18, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep WoodenBoat, and merge and redirect WoodenBoat Forum to it. It's apparently a notable publication within its (small) field. *Dan T.* 15:05, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Delete, obviously self serving promotion, very poor net-etiquette to attempt free advertising on an information database, This commercial venture has no business being on Wikipedia. the owner of this publication should be contacted and admonished

*Mike* 18:29, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep the magazine, Neutal on the forum. I've seen the magazine on newstands plenty of times: beautiful-looking publication, even if not my cup of tea. Also, paid circulation of 105,000 readers makes it notable enough. --Calton | Talk 03:48, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Please note that WoodenBoat publications did not add this article to Wikipedia. I did. I have no affiliation with this organization, although I do read their magazine and frequent their forum. WoodenBoat emerged as part of the heritage movement of the sixties and early seventies (the same movement that gave us the Whole Earth Review, Foxfire, and the Folk Revival). WoodenBoat also runs an important school at Brooklin, Maine, where the old skills have been disseminated by many notable figures, including Joel White (who has an article in Wikipedia). Bruce Taylor

• Keep Woodenboat and Delete or Redirect Woodenboat Forum. I don't see that we have any clear policy on articles about periodicals, but I don't see this as advertising, per se. The magazine has been published for more than 30 years, and there are books available that are collections of columns and articles from the magazine. I have some interest in this as I have a list of old magazines that I might try to write articles for. If anyone wants to discuss the possibility of working up some recommendations for criteria for periodical publications, contact me at my talk page. -- Dalbury^(Talk) 00:16, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep WoodenBoat, and merge and redirect WoodenBoat Forum to it. -- DS1953 01:15, 7 December 2005 (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.