Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Volitan

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 no consensus. –MuZemike 01:14, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Volitan

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

As far as I can tell this boat was never actually built or developed into an actual product. The page seems to be a plug for the company that designed it. 109a152a8a146 (talk) 21:53, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - The article needs a lot of work, but the design appears to have won some notable awards. Something doesn't need to have been actually built to have a Wikipedia article. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:02, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just not sure how notable the award actually is. There is an article on the International Design Award on WP, but as far as I can tell this isn't the same International Design Award as the one that was given for the Volitan. I cannot really judge the importance of this award, as it is totally out of my field. My impression is though that the award is relatively minor (although I admit that this impression is largely based on the low number of followers [178] on Facebook...)(http://idesignawards.com/). I agree that it isn't that important if it was built or not if it had a major impact on the field of boat design, but I am really not sure that this is the case here. 109a152a8a146 (talk) 11:31, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There appears to have been a blip of coverage in 2007, e.g., [1], and [2] but does not appear to have any sustained coverage or interest. -- Whpq (talk) 16:57, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:46, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - we discourage WP:CRYSTAL-ball gazing. However as a design that received awards, it might just be notable. Do we have list articles on these awards? If not, perhaps the awards are NN, in which case the boat design is perhaps also NN and should be deleted. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:04, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Casual web search readily indicates notability (e.g. mention in Popular Science). --Kvng (talk) 17:36, 14 November 2011 (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.