Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/People Paddle
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 delete. Wizardman 03:26, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
People Paddle[edit]
- People Paddle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
The organization itself is somewhat marginal and probably fall short of the expectations of the relevant guideline. In any case, the article is written like an advertisement for the group's activities and in no way resembles an actual encyclopedic article. Pichpich (talk) 11:51, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 12:54, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 21:51, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete blatantly promotional, and so tagged. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:04, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep pending proper sourcing I had a look at the single reference and it does seem to be a fairly notable event. I have removed the speedy tag and trimmed out the worst advertising from the article. I can try to improve it further, but I certainly think it would be worth seeking further input before deleting. --John (talk) 04:29, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment My search for notable and verifiable references drew a blank, and the existing one (besides the group's own website) is pretty tenuous. I have trimmed the egregious advertising that was going on, and emailed the article creator asking for input (as I noticed they hadn't contributed for while). It may very well be that this group fails notability; or it may be that this (seemingly quite major) fund-raising enterprise has somehow escaped web notability. My hope would be that there is a paper resource out there that establishes notability, or that my search was flawed. I was surprised that a series of events of such apparent size was not more widely covered on, for example, SFGate. Yet I don't think it is a hoax. Thoughts? --John (talk) 05:32, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The problem is that this kind of organization does get some amount of local coverage as, you know, the feel-good story of the day. But there's no depth to that coverage and there's usually no fact-checking behind it, so even these cannot truly be considered third-party references. Pichpich (talk) 14:19, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment My search for notable and verifiable references drew a blank, and the existing one (besides the group's own website) is pretty tenuous. I have trimmed the egregious advertising that was going on, and emailed the article creator asking for input (as I noticed they hadn't contributed for while). It may very well be that this group fails notability; or it may be that this (seemingly quite major) fund-raising enterprise has somehow escaped web notability. My hope would be that there is a paper resource out there that establishes notability, or that my search was flawed. I was surprised that a series of events of such apparent size was not more widely covered on, for example, SFGate. Yet I don't think it is a hoax. Thoughts? --John (talk) 05:32, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Delete - there is just the one Sentinel article. I don't see other coverage. So it appear that this event is not notable. I can be convinced if other reliable sources can be found, but I've not found any. -- Whpq (talk) 12:58, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Having unsuccessfully searched for sources, and emailed and messaged the article creator appealing for more reliable sources (ideally the coverage in the San Francisco Chronicle that the creator claimed initially), failing that I have to say this article is not viable. However I would like to propose a redirect and merge of the existence of the group, in view of the borderline notability of the fundraiser. Whether this should be to a sourced mention in kayak, San Francisco (or more likely one of its daughter articles), or some other target I would be loath to see this completely disappear from Wikipedia. What are others' thoughts? --John (talk) 18:11, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - considering the lack of coverage in San Francisco-based media, I don't see why this should be merged into any article. It would surely look odd in kayak, and city articles aren't for listing minor events. -- Whpq (talk) 18:18, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Kayak in a section at the end. There's not enough for a stand-alone article, but, as John says, this should be kept somewhere, per WP:NNC. Ty 07:00, 30 March 2008 (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.