Talk:WoodenBoat

message: blatant commercialism and the listing is attracting trolls from the magazine's online forum, It should be deleted
What rubbish, If Wikipedia intends being a free encyclopedia to the world then it must allow WoodenBoat as an inclusion, many will be there who will be searching for the meanings of the words while others will be searching for such a thing as a woodenboat. WoodenBoat has meaning substance and worth, the use of the word in boatbuilding design and archeture is without doubt based on mellenium of years of boats and mans continued use in them
The article does not and has not encourage either purchase of or commercial reward from the use of or purchase of the magazine but rather a central point of meeting of those interested in the design lifestyles construction and use of boats made of wood. The listing has nothing to do with weather or not online trolls come to Wikipedia that is something that will happen whenever there is an open opportunity for someone to post whatever they like, that is commonly known as freedom of expression freedom of speach. It will no doubt happen that trolls will find Wikipedia but to say theyre being used to attract them from the online forum is a pathetic attempt to stop what is an essential necessary inclusion to Wikipedias existance
Your argument would be valid if you were lobbying for inclusion of the term "wooden boat" However you are arguing for the inclusion of a commercial venture named " Woodenboat". By that standard Wikipedia have to include any commercial venture that wants to include themselves. If Woodenboat the magazine needs exposure let them buy advertising like everyone else.
:There are plenty of commercial entities covered here, and plenty that aren't. It's not the case that Wikipedia has to cover "any commercial venture that wants to include themselves." There are actual criteria in place. What's relevant here is that the article be NPOV (it is), and that the subject be notable (which is what's being debated in AfD). I haven't seen any trolls in the AfD discussion; I see, besides the author, four dispassionate votes to keep, of whom I am one, and I've never opened a copy of Wooden Boat or gone to their sites. The others are productive Wikipedia editors. There seems to be some personal animus at work here, which isn't really productive. Also, what Freply says below (again): sign your posts. rodii 15:10, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: earlier comments

message: Everyone, please remember to sign your posts with four tildes ~~~~ which automatically signs and dates your comment. FreplySpang (talk) 23:09, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Please sign your posts

message: WoodenBoat Forum now redirects here, as per the AFD debate that agreed to do that and keep this article. Johnleemk | Talk 11:35, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Failed AFD for this article and [[WoodenBoat Forum]] 

message: This publication is the journal of the North American wooden boat community and has played and continues to play a crucial role in historical preservation and maritime historiography. It's of international consequence, and has been a source of record for traditional and modern boatwrights around the world since its founding in 1974. I'm happy to see that the ignorant firefight over notability ended almost twenty years ago, but the article as it stands is ridiculously summary. 
It's also surprising that Jon Wilson doesn't have an article of his own, given his stature as a scholar, businessman, and publisher. Laodah 02:42, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: The relative importance of WoodenBoat magazine