Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pirate's Dinner Adventure (4th nomination)

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. sloppy debate, concensus for deleting, WP:GOOGLEHITS isn't a reason for keeping, references are poor, and also no indication was given on why this resterant is important to an area that isn't local Jaranda ^{wat's sup} ^Sports! 01:22, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pirate's Dinner Adventure[edit]

This is the 4th nomination for deletion. CSD was refused on the grounds that notability is asserted (not sure how though). Non-notability per WP:CORP WebHamster 12:27, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note for newcomers to this discussion: This article has been flushed out with many sources added since the initial beginning of this debate. Please take the time to look at the article as it exists now. Thanks. Nesnad 17:16, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Webhamster, as your profile states, you like to delete things. This establishment has to be kind of notable because I found links to it and wanted to get details from Wikipedia and couldn't because there was no page. This isn't an advertisement. Look at the link provided for a review of the place, mostly negative people complaining about bad food. Bad food doesn't mean a place isn't notable. This is surly big enough to have a Wikipedia page. Don't go delete crazy. Thanks. Nesnad 12:45, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article doesn't really try to explain why it's notable, other than comparing its business model to two other chains which have widespread recognition. Link in article is to a brief entry in a "city guide", which presumably covers most if not all of the restaurants in a given area. Thomjakobsen 14:10, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SPEEDY DELETE Should be speedied under CSD G4. There is nothing here that wasn't discussed in the previous AfD's. it has just been recreated against policy. The only reference given is to a listing on a local restaurant guide which appears to have been prepared by the restaurant's own publicist. In the comments section postings from former patrons of the restaurant encourage us not to believe the hype. Contrary to Nesnad's assertion the external link source is not a restaurant review by an independent critic -- not a reliable source. OfficeGirl 14:22, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DID YOU EVEN READ THE LINK?? How could it be prepared by the publicist?? The user reviews are horrible. They all gave less than three stars. I think the link wasn't really read carefully. And regarding other comments, the article is a baby thats why it doesn't go into too many details yet. Do a google search, there is a lot of info out there. I just don't have time yet to pull it all together yet. I have no connection to this place, never even been there, but see no reason why it cant be here. Information is useful and if a similar company (in the same area) Medieval Times has a huge wikipedia page why cant this one? That's like saying McDonalds can have a page but Burger King can not. Nesnad 15:39, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

YES, I read the webpage that was linked to from the article, and the two other links that have been added since. They are all listings on local restaurant guides. The initial listing is something that would be placed at the request of the restaurant. The responses to the listing are nothing different than posts on any internet forum, and we don't generally regard forum posts as reliable sources, no matter what the post says. Medieval Times has established its notability and has been the subject of media coverage and numerous major cultural references. Very few people have heard of these two "Pirate's Dinner Adventure" restaurants, and those who have are telling us not to believe the hype and not to waste our time on them. They are non-notable, crappy restaurants and this article is nothing but an advertisement which has been deleted twice from Wikipedia. OfficeGirl 16:22, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stay NPOV. Crappy place to eat does not equal shouldn't make an article. I agree these places like like tourists traps, disagree that there shouldn't be an article. Nesnad 18:25, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crappy place to eat does not equal shouldn't make an article. - Given that this doesn't form any part of her argument, this warning seems pointless, as does the misplaced evoking of NPOV: given that this page isn't an article, what does POV/NPOV have to do with anything? --Calton | Talk 03:26, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Cant see any reason for the article other than advertising. It's just a restaurant. (Or two). And nothing notable about it. Marcus22 15:50, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I forgot to vote. I know Wikipedia culture, now everyone else will jump on the delete with out thinking hard. Please people, I don't get why the rush to delete. Wiki isnt a paper dictionary, we can include a lot more than a paper one. I repeat, in a google exclusive search (with quotes) this has over 20,000 hits. This isn't a minor small shop. This seems to play a part in the local area, it is close to Knot's berry farm, and provides context for that park. I don't get this rush to delete it? Nesnad 16:02, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to misunderstand what is meant by references. They need to be reliable, independent and substantial reports. Linking to pages where Joe Public leaves reviews or there are just a few lines of promotional puff does not cut it. Also the number of Google links in itself is not an indicator, it's the quality and relevance that counts. Quantity is not a surrogate for quality. Please re-read WP:CORP. You are trying to overturn 3 previous AFD votes, you won't manage that without impeccable citations. --WebHamster 16:11, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Local restaurant with no real notability outside the local region. Including local businesses like this makes us the yellow pages Corpx 17:07, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with what webhamster said above that "you won't manage that without impeccable citations" ... Isn't this afd vote thing sort of useless if people will decide to delete something because it was deleted before? Are you saying that in order to keep this as "valid" for wikipedia I need a mountain of book references? Thats not going to happen for this and most other eating establishments... but Wikipedia has a category so that must not rule such establishments out just on that factor? (I know this article should be judged on it's own merits, but it does exist in the ecosystem known as Wikipedia afterall.) The more I look into this place, it looks like a crappy place I'd never want to go... but I still think it seems to play a significant enough role that it should be given a chance to be developed into an article. And I suppose I don't have to remind you guys that Wikipedia isn't a democracy. WP:DEMOCRACY Just because I am in the minority doesn't mean you can up and delete this with out a good discussion. I really don't understand this rash "delete everything that isn't super super famous" thing these days. Nesnad 17:39, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you to the extent that you are saying this AfD is a needless process. Under wikipedia policy this should be speedily deleted, see CSD G4. There really isn't any need for a vote.OfficeGirl 18:04, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Looking back over the previous AfD's, I see at least 14 different users have said Delete on this article. Why was it recreated? Nothing seems to have changed in terms of notability. Marcus22 17:59, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: this isnt a CSD G4, I made this article myself, and are you saying no article can ever be made after it has been deleted? Although I'm loosing spirit here. You all are in bloody shark frenzy mode so I guess there is nothing I can do to try to build articles about such American pop culture things on here. This article was made in order to make a red link blue... It's a useless holeinthewall but I'm sure there are enough tourists going in and out of it that it should have information about it on Wikipedia. I'm not sure why you all are so dead set against this? Nesnad 18:15, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Agreed that it's not a CSD G4 as that covers exact copies of previously deleted material, and I trust that you've written this from scratch. But if tourist throughput were a measure of notability, we'd have articles on the various toilet blocks at Disneyland. Anyway, it can't be that notable or else it would have been raided by an army of ninjas by now. Thomjakobsen 18:36, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because the article has no sources and seems likely not to acquire sources, rather than because of some pile-on delete. If reliable sources are added to the article, please then keep it. Nihiltres^(t.l) 18:33, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT: This is a perfect case for the application of WP:SNOW.OfficeGirl 20:37, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This isnt WP:SNOW but I concede if people don't start thinking clearly this will begin to seem like an WP:UPHILL battle... Which I don't want. So please... Please think clearly, don't just jump on the delete bandwagon, so to speak. (Please see the newspaper references and what not.) Thanks Nesnad 10:10, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am agreeing with User:Nihiltres here on what to do with this article. Captain panda 21:40, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, probably speedily as a {{db-repost}}. No sources, barely a suggestion of notability, and the article creator's overreaction isn't helping. --Calton | Talk 03:26, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. My "overreaction" is simply remembering when we used to be able to try to make an article before it was attacked by a million "rule police". Maybe this article sucks, but there is no time to find out because it is killed before the community gives it a chance to grow. The scream for "more reliable sources" is odd, there are tons out there, it just takes shifting through them. Newspapers are valid aren't they? The Chicago Tribune has record of this place. here I guess I should add it. Those of you attack this place, please explain why not even a newspaper is valid for your attack mode? These days, there are more soldiers than civilians on Wikipedia. Please think clearly. Don't let your hate of a place make you have a POV, please stay NPOV. Nesnad 09:37, 9 September 2007 (UTC) EDIT Forgot to mention my second newspaper reference: here Two mentions of this establishment in newspapers, this second one even has a clearly labeled print date. Thus it is even a print reference. Come on people, stop the hate train. Think clearly. Thanks. Nesnad 09:51, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non-trivial references are required. In both those articles, the place is mentioned once amongst a list of other places, and the writers don't seem to have even been there. Find us a review in one of those newspapers and it might be a start. This has got nothing to do with "hating the place" or not "thinking clearly". We just want some proof of notability, same as the people involved the last 3 times it got deleted, and we haven't seen any so far. Thomjakobsen 10:32, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you mean about references? I don't live in America, I assume good faith. When the content at the link says it is real, I believe it is. I am not sure what you need beyond the link? I do agree the first link didn't say much more than it's name. Although it is proof that this touristy place is notable enough to even get it's name printed in a newspaper article. References don't have to be positive to make something notable, of course, right? This one by the Union Tribune in San Diego complains about a planned move. It does more than name drop, it talks about the company's plans and what people in the community think. here Nesnad 10:52, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Examples: Medieval Times has an entire article about it in a major publication, establishing notability beyond a doubt (otherwise, why would such an article be written? no-one would know what he was talking about). Dolly Parton's place appears to have a behind the scenes documentary starring the lady herself, besides being owned by a big star. The bar doesn't have to be this high, reviews in reliable newspapers might be sufficient. The Union Tribune article seems too trivial, it's just reportage of some fuss being caused by the restaurant's owners in San Diego. If a local restaurant was investigated for a food poisoning outbreak, they'd get similar depth of news coverage, but it wouldn't mean they're notable. I'm assuming, if that's the best third-party source we've found so far, that no substantial ones exist. Thomjakobsen 12:25, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your thoughts, but it does seems a little like you want to shoot down any references I get. Before it was you need one. I get one and you say its not substantial enough because you say it's on the same level as food poising. Although I disagree, I don't see how this makes it not notable. Can you point out where large population local area disputes in a newspaper regarding an establishment does not count for any notability whatsoever? And I am a bit annoyed by the "we've found" comment. That's one of the things annoying me about this, I seem to be the only one working on this. Back in the day people would work together to find notability. I'm busy, I'm doing my best. And I think I found quite a bit. Please quote where the sources (newspaper, blog review, youtube video) are not enough to show this place is not a known establishment. Thanks Nesnad 12:45, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody's said "you need one reference", the issue right from the beginning is that you need substantial, non-trivial coverage by independent, reliable sources. The issue is not whether this place exists (which I'm sure it does), but whether it is noteworthy enough to warrant its own article. The guidelines are at WP:N. I said "we've found" because people obviously have done a search for sources and have found nothing substantial. The fact that you're bringing up sources which others have rejected as not being supportive of notability doesn't mean that you're the only one putting any effort into this. If I'd said "If this is the best you've found", you'd perhaps complain that I was being adversarial. If you can show us some good sources, we can change our opinions on this. But arguing in the absence of such gets us nowhere. Thomjakobsen 13:18, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nesnad, please stop being so abusive. If the article is worth keeping, prove it. Just calling everyone 'sharks' or 'rule police' or whatever is making no positive difference whatsoever to this debate. Likewise, it is rather annoying to be told, repeatdely, to 'think clearly'. Some of us are quite capable of doing that and, indeed, have done so. Marcus22 10:56, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback Marcus22, I'm just honestly annoyed. It seems like nothing can be built on Wikipedia these days. Wiki is about information, not about a bunch of people hunting to delete things. I agree with their intentions, not their attitudes. I remember back in the day people would try to work together to establish if something was worth keeping instead of this rabid "delete it!!" mentality. Anyway Marcus22, fair feedback. I just don't know how I can get people to take a breath and stop being so hyperactive on the del key. Nesnad 11:12, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Walk the Plank It's survived three nominations so far, but has this article improved at all? It's a theme restaurant that's capitalizing on the current interest in pirates; and it has two locations, one near Knott's Berry Farm, the other near Disney World. It's got a website... but the only publicity cited is a "mention" in a St. Pete newspaper article and two reviews on the web. Keep Nesnad has gone to a lot of effort to improve the article after listening to suggestions, adding sources and doing some rewrite. Dixie Stampede and Medieval Times have only a handful of locations, and, as with Pirates Dinner, they're at high-traffic, expensive locations. The article also indicates that the new chain is working on getting another location. So, I'll change my vote keep and ask everyone else to take into account the improvements. Mandsford 14:25, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, multiple references, survived three nominations already, interesting, well organized article, nice picture, etc. --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 15:54, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It hasn't survived any nominations; it's already been deleted three times. The references all fall way short of WP:N. Thomjakobsen 16:20, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Thomjakobsen! How do the references fall too short? I think this is notable enough for an article, can you please quote directly from the policy how the references fail to meet policy? Thanks for your time. Nesnad 16:29, 9 September 2007 (UTC) EDIT: To offer my own quote, the top of the WP:N thing states "This concept is distinct from "fame", "importance", or "popularity". " Can you explain to me why you still reject this article? It seems like people are telling me this touristy place isn't famous enough. Clear conflict with this policy which states fame isn't part of the concept. Once again, please explain directly how this article (I have worked hard to add more details that have never been in this article before, and will be adding more in the future) fails to meet WP:N? Thanks. Nesnad 16:34, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The guidelines are at WP:N (on the need for significant coverage in reliable sources) and WP:RS (on the nature of reliable sources). Specifically, sources need to back up the information in the article. The UT article, although a reliable publication, doesn't back up the information in the article, with the exception of the one sentence which seems to have been inserted solely to justify using the source. The other sources are a blog (not reliable), a user-generated business directory (not reliable) and a trivial mention in a tourism piece, where it is mentioned once in a list of attractions (not significant, detail is required and it doesn't back up any of the article). Notable subjects will tend to have generated the type of coverage we're talking about, and that coverage would be substantial enough to back up the information in an article, and to establish notability. If in doubt, go look at articles for things which are considered notable, and see what kind of sources are considered suitable. Thomjakobsen 17:00, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's a better answer than I could have given. I'm being sincere when I say, "Thanks for your time." Mandsford 18:13, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The references which you have sourced do not establish notability. (Being the subject of a very localised planning debate, for example, is not sufficient). So, to try to be helpful, what would make for notability? Well if it had a top chef that might help. It it had been the scene of a famous murder, ditto. If it was owned and run by a famous person and the meeting place of the rich and famous, likewise. (But even then people might disagree that it is sufficiently notable to warrant its own article). Where are the stateswide or even international reviews? Where are the major scandals that link directly to the place? Find us something which makes the place noteworthy and I'm sure many of us will gladly change our vote. Conversely please accept that, without such information, there is no reason for this article to exist. Marcus22 18:17, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You really took a lot of time to reply, thanks. However I think you are misunderstanding WP:N? When talking about notability, it states This concept is distinct from "fame", "importance", or "popularity". The examples you gave clearly say things like "famous" and what not. This is NOT what notability is according to WP:N. Please have a read of that and take note that I'm not trying to claim this place is internationally famous. Simply, I read on a random blog about this place near Knott's Berry Farm. I went to wikipedia and it wasn't there. I am adding information for any other people that want to know. Notable does not mean famous. It's about weather its important to put in Wikipedia or not. There are many blog references (and blogs are important. Don't try to sell the idea that wikipedia exists in some sort of internet free environment) about this place, and I'm sure someone will want more information. That's what Wikipedia is about, sharing infromation. Thanks. Nesnad 06:35, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - While there are references provided none of them look realy notable, a blog and youtube disqualify themselves, the newspaper articles are more or less passing mentions and the yelp review isn't that substantial as well (also it's user generated putting it in the same category as youtube and a blog). It's a close one I admit that but still a delete. On a related note:
1redrun's golden rule ^no1 - The noteworthiness of an article is inverse-proportional to the number of posts by the articles creator in an AFD discussion.
1redrun ^Talk 09:20, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Haha, nice. Have you submitted that one to Raul's list of WikiLaws? GlassCobra 02:02, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The most notable thing is that the food is bad? This counts as non-trivial information? Maybe trivial does have a relevant meaning in WP after all. No substantial reliable sources--nor would any be expected. DGG (talk) 04:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If the chicken peglegs taste like wood; if the most favorable comment from a customer was "at least I won't get scurvy"; and if your restaurant has never been reviewed even in the local paper and your Wikipedia article has been deleted 3 times, going on 4... maybe you need a new person in charge of p.r. Mandsford 12:17, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DGG, why are these sources non reliable? Newspapers seem reliable enough to me. (And I'm not all about the old media, regardless of what some people say, I think blogs can be reliable too.) And yes, this company seems horrible Mandsford. Really a bad apple, so to speak. But I don't think that means people can't look the company up in Wikipedia. It's not like they will be forced to see the page. It's here if they want it. Nesnad 13:50, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This question has been answered repeatedly. Is it worth anyone's time to type out the same reasons again, if you're just going to ignore them? Thomjakobsen 14:52, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thomjakobsen, thanks for the feedback, but I see a lot of people claim things like "no famous people died there" or whatever, and other things, but no one has quoted where it says directly in policy that this isn't notable enough. Besides just saying "it isn't notable" or that they are "crappy restaurants". That's total POV and just because they are crap doesn't mean they are worth a delete, even though I think these places seem pretty crappy too... that doesn't mean it's not worth putting in Wikipedia. In fact, I talked to someone from Florida today way over here and asked him if he knew of this place. He had nothing but bad things to say about the place, said the owners were freaky and he thought it was a total tourist trap. However, crap does not equal something that can't have an article. I don't see why we can't have a little information on Wikipedia for the next person like me (and apparently others) who want information about this place. Clearly there are people that want more information about this place... and Wikipedia can provide information. Is that too weird? Nesnad 16:15, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further, there are many other references out there. To back up the claim that the food is not well liked, I just added a reference to a small review in a book about Florida. Yes, it isn't a 100 page review on this place. But it is not just some directory listing. It is an actual short review including a mention of the infamous bad tasting food. Thanks. Nesnad 16:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

we needn't duplicate Google. It's a very valuable resource for finding complaints on restaurants. Or even positive reviews. DGG (talk) 16:36, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DGG, honestly no offense meant but thats a funny thing to argue. Google can find almost anything, does that mean that Wikipedia can't have an article about things Google can find? This article is not about bad tasting food. It is just trying to be NPOV and report what is said about this place. Further, there is a CNN reference on the page now. TV, Newspapers, Blogs.... What more does this article need to make the delete soldiers give it a chance? Thanks guys, Nesnad 16:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: The alleged CNN reference is not a story about Pirate's Dinner Adventure. It is a story about tourism being down in the weeks after September 11, and that all the businesses in Orlando were suffering, including Disney, SeaWorld and the Visitors and Conventions Bureau. At the end of the piece the V.P. of Pirate's Dinner Adventure says they are marketing the restaurant to locals (since there were no tourists). One sentence. Two sentences if you count the lead in that introduces the Pirates VP. The piece gives substantially more attention to ANGELO GONZALEZ, TAXI DRIVER, than it does to this restaurant. Unfortunately Nesnad is still having a great deal of trouble with the meaning of the words: reliable sources and notability. Sigh.OfficeGirl 01:22, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the thoughts Officegirl... Why is that not reliable? And correct me if I'm wrong but notable means worth of notice? If a company is interviewed by CNN, even if they aren't the only company interviewed, doesn't that make them worth notice? Notability does not equal famous. It means worthy of notice. Thats a quote from WP:N, is it not? Thanks. Nesnad 09:57, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notice: I have added a biannual magazine and a business journal to the sources in this article. Is this finally enough? I think it is kind of getting ridiculous how the delete soldiers will not accept that with these many references in media (TV, newspaper, magazine, journal, blog) that someone is bound to type in the name of this place wanting more information. Please don't be offended by this if it seems rash of me to say, I'm just asking those in the "delete all old deleted articles" mentality to acknowledge the amount of places this company has popped up. This is notable. (And if you are getting internationally famous mixed up with notable, please don't. They aren't the same according to WP:N) Thanks for your time, Nesnad 16:08, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Arrrr! Ye impressed me with yer efforts to improve the article, and I've changed me vote as listed above. Arrrr. Mandsford 17:25, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The two newest references ( a small local Hispanic magazine article where the Pirates manager is one of four businessmen interviewed -- not so much about the restaurant as about being hispanic and in business-- and a brief local business journal article reporting that they came out of Chapter 11 and they are just one of several copycat theme restaurants competing for market share locally) are reliable sources, but they do not provide significant coverage, and the information contained therein acts as proof that Pirates is not notable. I love your enthusiasm, though, Nesnad. I'm going to figure out how to make some kind of a "be proud of me-- nobody tries harder than Nesnad!" barnstar award or something just for you. Sorry it hasn't gone better for your efforts this time around but your tenacity will eventually help save other articles on truly notable topics that need help. Check out the WP:ICU for articles that need someone like you to work on them.OfficeGirl 17:49, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Mandsford. If you weren't trying to be sarcastic, I really wish to say thanks for the barnstar Officegirl. However, I really don't think you understand the concept of notable. Please read WP:N. I don't mean that as an offensive thing. I just mean it clearly states it has nothing to do with being famous. What does an article have to be to be notable for you? Someone famous has to have died there? No. Notable means people would want to look it up on Wikipedia. They would notice it. There are quite a few sources in media pointing to this place... This will lead to someone wanting this information. Wikipedia is information. I think it's important to establish all articles that lead to real information for the user. If we stay NPOV and add all valid sourced articles, weather we personally like the information or not, Wikipedia will someday be a source of even more amazing knowledge because of our desire to add sourced information to it ... and yes, yet another article here about Pirate's Dinner Adventure is a reference in the article. This one is specifically about Pirate's Dinner Adventure and it's on the other coast. That means we have articles on both coasts of the United States of America, Officegirl (et al.). Really, please help me add to this article if you want to use effort. Otherwise, please acknowledge the fact that this has enough reason to be in Wikipedia. Thanks, Nesnad 18:59, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT: There is so much written about this place, here is another one for browsing. Very long indepth article with a lot of information in it that I can incorporate in to this article. (It's in Spanish, multilingual sources aren't a problem I hope.) Nesnad 19:18, 12 September 2007 (UTC) EDIT: And here is another article about this establishment. Same newspaper as another source, but written by a different author months later. I'm not sure why this article hasn't been acknowledged as notable yet. This is more references to substantial articles than more than half of the articles here on wikipedia! :) Nesnad 13:54, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm.. this is 10 to 3 in favour of delete for an article that has previously been deleted. Any passing Admin have any idea why the AfD has not yet been closed? Marcus22 12:09, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think that wikipedia policy says you can edit while the discussion is going on and I have. Most of the "deletes" were listed when this was a baby article with no references. I don' t think its fair to close now. Also, Wikipedia is not a democracy so the ratio of for and against doesn't matter if thats what you were implying. If you will notice only one of the people hanging around has kept his/her vote as delete. I think people rush for delete, but if you think clearly and check my references, this is clearly sourced and notable. To say otherwise is to cling to dogma such as "once deleted it can't have value again"... Nesnad 12:39, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst I agree you have put work in, I am rather fed-up with your name calling, Nesnad. We are "delete soldiers", we "rush for delete", we "cling to dogma", you imply we have not re-considered the article, you accuse people of "hanging around" (it's the 'watch' tab) etc.. Please refrain from these and similar comments. As far as I can see, there is nothing in the article which makes the place notable. Others have not yet changed their view. Perhaps they will. In which case, I accept their verdict. Or perhaps you are wrong? Have you considered that possibility? Marcus22 12:53, 16 September 2007 (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.