Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cruising (driving)

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 keep. Seraphimblade 11:21, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cruising (driving)

Cruising (driving) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - (View log)

Hardly more than a really long dictionary definition. froth^T 02:48, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Addendum: OK people my point was that the most substatial content of the article is the little blurb at the top giving the definition. Most articles have that, but they have additional valuable content. Unlike this article. --froth^T 05:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Hmmm, that sounds like the dictionary definition of an encyclopedia article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 05:45, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
  • It isn't, however. "short" is not synonymous with "dictionary" and the antonym of "short" is not "encyclopaedia". Dictionary articles can often be long. Indeed, a Wiktionary article that has grown from a stub into a full article, containing everything that it should, will usually be long. Uncle G 14:45, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep This is a well known term and is also very common in the places described in the article. In addition it's well written and sourced. I personally don't see any real call for deletion. Ganfon 03:12, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Well known term for a common activity, article needs work though. Russeasby 03:33, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep It is a well known activity in popular culture. -- Candy-Panda 04:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, no news references to assert notability. - SpLoT _(*C*+u+g) 04:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: News references aren't the only forms of verifiable references. -Branddobbe 03:14, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I hardly consider a couple of fansites reliable. - SpLoT _(*C*+u+g) 14:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete without prejudice. The article as is has no sourcing above the level of blogs/fansites. Cruising certainly is a cultural phenomenon and an article could certainly be written on the topic, but this article ain't it. Otto4711 04:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: If the topic is notable but the writing is bad, isn't that grounds for a rewrite rather than a deletion? -Branddobbe 03:14, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

• Yes it is. However, in this case the issue is that the information in the article is not verified through reliable sources and that is grounds for deletion. Otto4711 16:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

• I've added a few BBC and BBC News article links on UK car cruises. --J2thawiki 18:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
• Otto4711, it is not grounds for deletion, in fact, it is explicitly suggested as an article where "deletion may not be needed" as per WP:DELETE —siroχo 09:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, well known activity/slang. Some improved references could possibly found, but the article isn't so beyond help that it should be deleted. Lankiveil 05:19, 21 January 2007 (UTC).
• Keep Per Lankiveil. Killroy4 07:40, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep but rewrite per Lankiveil. Cream147 12:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Suggest that those calling "keep but rewrite" actually rewrite the article including finding sources. Otto4711 16:28, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Topic is clearly notable as a matter of common knowledge, writing and sourcing issues can be improved. --Shirahadasha 17:54, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Common activity and quite good article that just needs some more references. --J2thawiki 21:39, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. If this is just "a really long dictionary definition", then so is everything else on Wikipedia. -Branddobbe 03:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Dicdef, and unsourced dicdef at that. Original research too. And arbitrarily discusses "cruising" in three, apparently randomly chosen countries. --The Way 05:20, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't understand how focusing on cruising "in three, apparently randomly chosen countries" is a reason to delete. Sometimes issues only are relevant in certain countries and that's where the sources come from, hardly an "arbitrary" reason to focus on those countries. If articles need to be deleted because they don't apply the subject to most countries on earth, we'd hardly have any articles. --Oakshade 22:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Common term, common act, common knowledge. The problem is not in the subject, but in sourcing information, and therefore should be kept. —siroχo 10:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Are you saying that the article should be kept because it is impossible to verify it? That is entirely the opposite of our Wikipedia:Deletion policy. Uncle G 14:47, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Not at all, I'm saying its very possible to verify it as it is common knowledge, and therefore should not be deleted. Fixing the sourcing information will fix the problem, deleting it also fixes the problem, but leads to a loss of information. This is a case of not cutting the whole arm off due to a paper cut. —siroχo 08:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Unverifiability inflicts paralysis on the entire arm. - SpLoT _(*C*+u+g) 08:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
        • Unverifiablility is a misdiagnosis of this... er... arm. (: This arm is simply unverified, but it is verifiable. —siroχo 09:06, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
          • So do it. - SpLoT _(*C*+u+g) 10:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
            • Already did, if you'd like to check it out (: —siroχo 11:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
• Note. Citations have been provided for crusing in Detroit (Detroit News), the UK (BBC news), Milwaukee (Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, TheNewspaper.com_, and California (American Graffiti. Before anyone objects, yes, a work of fiction can be cited if its basis in fact is known and explained, which it is here). There are many more out there, but this is certainly proof of concept for verifiability. The related cultural and legal aspects prove its existence beyond a dicdef. —siroχo 09:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
• Change vote to weak keep. Article is now verified with reliable sources, proving more depth than a dicdef. However, references are still somewhat weak, only for the U.S. and none for other countries. Forgive my ignorance, Siroxo, didn't notice your note. - SpLoT _(*C*+u+g) 12:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Very encyclopedic topic. Cruising is a well established activity that many localities have deemed a nusance and frequently illegal. Here are some articles about the topic found after 5 seconds of googling - [1][2][3] I wish the nom did the slightest amount of reserch before sending to AfD. --Oakshade 07:35, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. I know what crusing is and I know that a lot of people do it, but I don't think it belongs in the encyclopedia. Don't insult me because we disagree --froth^T 19:41, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Not an insult. It only took a few seconds of a g-search to see it's a very encyclopedic topic. The topic includes a history, many studies and even government ordinances regulating or restricting it. These aspects are far beyond the scope of a dictionary. --Oakshade 22:05, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
• keep please this is really a encyclopedic topic no reason for erasing it yuckfoo 20:33, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep well reported on cultural pasttime of several countries. Not a WP:NEO, uncyclopedic??? dont make me laugh... There are several magazines that make a living targeting this segment of the global population.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 00:25, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep topic is notable and encyclopedic; article needs rewrite and better sources —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Richardshusr (talk • contribs) 08:21, 25 January 2007 (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.