Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seacrest cove 2
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 of the debate was keep (no consensus) (9d-5k-1move/merge). Still, if we get an article on the park some time, it might be preferable to merge the information on the beach there. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:46, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Seacrest cove 2
This is beachcruft. Only 50 distinct google hits. NatusRoma 00:20, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
- keep, real beach. Kappa 01:43, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
- Delete doesn't make it notable. V/ M
01:47, 24 October 2005 (UTC) - Delete. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information; policy states that, on its own, the fact that something is 100% true "does not mean it is suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia." --Aquillion 02:41, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
- OK so we can delete anything we like, any particular reason to delete this real beach? Kappa 02:50, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
- Yes. It lacks anything that would make it suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. An encyclopedia, as is noted in the link above, is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and when people search for a topic within one, they are searching for encyclopedic things that fall within that topic. Someone who searches the Wikipedia database for beaches is looking for encyclopedic beaches, not a list of every beach that exists. --Aquillion 03:16, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
- So before I look for a beach or a village in wikipedia, I have to first decide if it's encyclopedic or not? But how would I know? Kappa 10:47, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
- If it was possible to have easy rules that could be applied without interpretation, we wouldn't need AFD; but a simple rule of thumb is that if you can't think of any reason why a given thing would be in an enyclopedia beyond the fact that it's real, then it probably doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Indeed, as noted above, policy specifically bars the use of realness, on its own, as a justification for inclusion. --Aquillion 14:43, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
-
- The reason this beach should be in wikipedia is because people would want to be able to look it up. Wikipedia takes money for providing people with knowledge, not for depriving them of it. Kappa 16:06, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
- No, Wikipedia takes money to provide people with encyclopedic knowledge. That's an important distinction. A website that collects any and all random trivia or geographical data, no matter how minor, is not an encyclopedia. I understand your urge to try and collect all human knowledge in a single place, and you're certainly free to start a website yourself (or, if you prefer, start an atlas) to collect all unencyclopedic knowledge and fill in the gaps. That is not, however, Wikipedia's goal. We are making an encyclopedia, not a factbook. --Aquillion 23:55, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
- Wikipedia takes money to provide people with the sum of human knowledge. If you want to remove knowledge that I want to look up, you should start your own project. Kappa 13:40, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
- It does not. It takes money to provide people with an encyclopedia. Talk of the "sum of human knowledge" is purple prose, not policy. Our policy, in WP:NOT, states that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and that simple truth is not enough to warrent inclusion; there are true facts that do not belong here, and articles about real things that require deletion. If you want to challenge that fundimental policy and argue that all true facts belong in an encyclopedia, then you should do so on the approprate talk pages, not here. --Aquillion 21:18, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
- So when wikipedia tells donors it's providing the sum of human knowledge, that means nothing? Kappa 00:24, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
- Correct. Our goal is to create an encyclopedia. That goal is written on every page, and is the message at the heart of every one of our fundraisers; the fact that our founder may occasionally wax poetic at such events does not change our central nature. Everything that has gone into Wikipedia up until this point been devoted to the creation of an encyclopedia, and our most sacred trust is therefore to maintain encyclopedic standards. --Aquillion 05:10, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
- I see, the end justifies the means. But wikipedia relies on the assumption of good faith, if it doesn't act in good faith, how can it expect it from others? Kappa 05:18, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
- I don't understand your point. Wikipedia's first and foremost promise to everyone who contributes to it--both to regular editors and to donors--is that creating an encyclopedia. This promise is repeated on every page and outlined in careful detail on policy pages such as WP:NOT; it is the central guideline that unites everyone involved in the project. If you're asking whether that commitment to encyclopedic standards takes precidence, policywise, over our fundraising slogans, then the answer is can only be yes. It would be a poor repayment to our supporters if we abandoned our central goal at this late date. --Aquillion 06:39, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
- You'll implying to donors you'll give them a comprehensive encyclopedia, and at the same time throwing out information they would expect to find in it. That seems like a pretty poor repayment. Kappa 15:00, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
- There! You admit, then, that that maintaining encyclopedic standards is an essential part of building an encyclopedia, and that we are duty-bound to keep content to what people would expect to find within such a work? In that case, we're almost done. All your earlier arguments are moot; they come down to the question you just begged over what our encyclopedia is and what we have decided people can expect from it. Luckily, we don't need to try and scry this from obscure statements by Jimbo or random fundraising slogans; we have a well-known, authorative, and near-universally accepted policy at WP:NOT. This policy states, quite clearly and without room for interpretation, that the fact that something is 100% true does not automatically make it encyclopedic. I understand your concerns that this conflicts with some of our fundraising slogans, but at the moment it is policy, and governs all of our decisions on encyclopedic worth. If you want to take issue with it, or with our fundraising, then the approprate place is on its talk page or the village pump, not here. --Aquillion 20:40, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
- It remains fact that you are denying people information they would hope to find in this encyclopedia, so your interpretation of WP:NOT conflicts with the morality of taking their money. Kappa 21:14, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
- When Wikipedia takes money from people, it does not promise to fufill their every hope. Indeed, if their hopes are absurd or unreasonable, then they are doomed to be disappointed; and as Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, the only things that people can reasonably hope to find in it are encyclopedic things. Fufilling unreasonable hopes at the cost of disappointing the far larger number of people who have contributed to Wikipedia with the hope of creating an encyclopedic work is plainly not the right or moral thing to do. Therefore, if you want to argue that this page or that page belongs in Wikipedia, you can only do so on grounds of encyclopedic merit. If you wish, you could argue that all true things have encyclopedic merit, but since policy plainly states otherwise, you would have to start that debate by attempting to change policy. All of your other arguments are bunk; in the end, they come down to what belongs/should be/is expected in an encyclopedia, which is the one issue, in your endless circling, that you still have not addressed. --Aquillion 02:09, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
- It remains fact that you are denying people information they would hope to find in this encyclopedia, so your interpretation of WP:NOT conflicts with the morality of taking their money. Kappa 21:14, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
- There! You admit, then, that that maintaining encyclopedic standards is an essential part of building an encyclopedia, and that we are duty-bound to keep content to what people would expect to find within such a work? In that case, we're almost done. All your earlier arguments are moot; they come down to the question you just begged over what our encyclopedia is and what we have decided people can expect from it. Luckily, we don't need to try and scry this from obscure statements by Jimbo or random fundraising slogans; we have a well-known, authorative, and near-universally accepted policy at WP:NOT. This policy states, quite clearly and without room for interpretation, that the fact that something is 100% true does not automatically make it encyclopedic. I understand your concerns that this conflicts with some of our fundraising slogans, but at the moment it is policy, and governs all of our decisions on encyclopedic worth. If you want to take issue with it, or with our fundraising, then the approprate place is on its talk page or the village pump, not here. --Aquillion 20:40, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
- You'll implying to donors you'll give them a comprehensive encyclopedia, and at the same time throwing out information they would expect to find in it. That seems like a pretty poor repayment. Kappa 15:00, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
- I don't understand your point. Wikipedia's first and foremost promise to everyone who contributes to it--both to regular editors and to donors--is that creating an encyclopedia. This promise is repeated on every page and outlined in careful detail on policy pages such as WP:NOT; it is the central guideline that unites everyone involved in the project. If you're asking whether that commitment to encyclopedic standards takes precidence, policywise, over our fundraising slogans, then the answer is can only be yes. It would be a poor repayment to our supporters if we abandoned our central goal at this late date. --Aquillion 06:39, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
- I see, the end justifies the means. But wikipedia relies on the assumption of good faith, if it doesn't act in good faith, how can it expect it from others? Kappa 05:18, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
- Correct. Our goal is to create an encyclopedia. That goal is written on every page, and is the message at the heart of every one of our fundraisers; the fact that our founder may occasionally wax poetic at such events does not change our central nature. Everything that has gone into Wikipedia up until this point been devoted to the creation of an encyclopedia, and our most sacred trust is therefore to maintain encyclopedic standards. --Aquillion 05:10, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
- So when wikipedia tells donors it's providing the sum of human knowledge, that means nothing? Kappa 00:24, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
- It does not. It takes money to provide people with an encyclopedia. Talk of the "sum of human knowledge" is purple prose, not policy. Our policy, in WP:NOT, states that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and that simple truth is not enough to warrent inclusion; there are true facts that do not belong here, and articles about real things that require deletion. If you want to challenge that fundimental policy and argue that all true facts belong in an encyclopedia, then you should do so on the approprate talk pages, not here. --Aquillion 21:18, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
- Wikipedia takes money to provide people with the sum of human knowledge. If you want to remove knowledge that I want to look up, you should start your own project. Kappa 13:40, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
- No, Wikipedia takes money to provide people with encyclopedic knowledge. That's an important distinction. A website that collects any and all random trivia or geographical data, no matter how minor, is not an encyclopedia. I understand your urge to try and collect all human knowledge in a single place, and you're certainly free to start a website yourself (or, if you prefer, start an atlas) to collect all unencyclopedic knowledge and fill in the gaps. That is not, however, Wikipedia's goal. We are making an encyclopedia, not a factbook. --Aquillion 23:55, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
- The reason this beach should be in wikipedia is because people would want to be able to look it up. Wikipedia takes money for providing people with knowledge, not for depriving them of it. Kappa 16:06, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
-
- If it was possible to have easy rules that could be applied without interpretation, we wouldn't need AFD; but a simple rule of thumb is that if you can't think of any reason why a given thing would be in an enyclopedia beyond the fact that it's real, then it probably doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Indeed, as noted above, policy specifically bars the use of realness, on its own, as a justification for inclusion. --Aquillion 14:43, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
- So before I look for a beach or a village in wikipedia, I have to first decide if it's encyclopedic or not? But how would I know? Kappa 10:47, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
- OK I'm confused, it seems like this would fit fine in an encyclopedia of West Seattle. I can reasonably expect to information on random colleges, cricket matches, Bible verses, Simpons episodes, pokemon characters, Slate journalists, and uninhabited villages in an encyclopedia, but not a beach used for diving. Please explain why the beach is absurd while these other things are not. Kappa 04:33, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
- We know, both from policy and from the definition of an enyclopedia, that encyclopedic worth exists, and that it is ultimately the sole criteria for inclusion in an encyclopedia. We also know, from policy, that simple truth is not enough to establish it here. Therefore, each article must assert, in some form or another, the encyclopedic worth of its topic. Of course, for many topics it is beyond queston; almost everything you listed, for instance, affects people on a vast scale, one clear sign of encyclopedic worth by anyone's estimation. Bible verses, Simpson episodes, and yes, even Pokemon characters and Slate journalists each play a role in the lives of millions of people daily. I'm not so sure that every cricket match or uninhabited village is encyclopedic; but widely-broadcast or otherwise major matches affect people on a similarly wide scale, while uninhabited villages were once inhabited, and may have left a mark on many people while they existed. Of course, this is only one scale of encyclopedic worth, not the only scale; but presuming that they don't get it simply for existing, I can't think of any argument that would extend encyclopedic worth to beaches as a general class. Some beaches might be encyclopedic, to be sure, and some people below have argued that this specific one is among them; but the argument I think I am hearing from you simply claims that all true things are enyclopedic. That argument, if you mean it, should be directed towards changing Wikipedia policy as a whole, not towards individual AfDs. --Aquillion 08:29, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
- You're telling me that the encylopedic worth of a random Slate journalist or village is beyond question, but to even claim it for a notable geographic feature like a beach is absurd and unreasonable. Seems rather arbitrary and ad hoc to me, but obviously I am an absurd an unreasonable person like anyone else who would hope to be able to look up this up, I wonder how many we are. Kappa 04:28, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
- No, I'm telling you that claiming categorical encyclopedic worth for all beaches is unreasonable. Your typical river can have, along its length, hundreds or thousands of indistinguishable coves; a few miles of coastline can have countless more, with overlapping local names that come and go. Indeed, there are vast sections of coastline consisting of virtually nothing but such coves. Your average seaside tourist town will have dozens of major beaches and innumerable smaller ones, many known only to locals; any expensive beachfront home will naturally have its own private beach, often with its own name and a little wooden sign to distinguish it and keep out the neighbors. If you have an argument to make as to the encyclopedic worth of this individual beach, go ahead and make it; but comparing beaches such as the above to Slate journalists or once-inhabited villages is an insult to reputable journalists and departed villagers, respectively. --Aquillion 10:34, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
- You're telling me that the encylopedic worth of a random Slate journalist or village is beyond question, but to even claim it for a notable geographic feature like a beach is absurd and unreasonable. Seems rather arbitrary and ad hoc to me, but obviously I am an absurd an unreasonable person like anyone else who would hope to be able to look up this up, I wonder how many we are. Kappa 04:28, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
- We know, both from policy and from the definition of an enyclopedia, that encyclopedic worth exists, and that it is ultimately the sole criteria for inclusion in an encyclopedia. We also know, from policy, that simple truth is not enough to establish it here. Therefore, each article must assert, in some form or another, the encyclopedic worth of its topic. Of course, for many topics it is beyond queston; almost everything you listed, for instance, affects people on a vast scale, one clear sign of encyclopedic worth by anyone's estimation. Bible verses, Simpson episodes, and yes, even Pokemon characters and Slate journalists each play a role in the lives of millions of people daily. I'm not so sure that every cricket match or uninhabited village is encyclopedic; but widely-broadcast or otherwise major matches affect people on a similarly wide scale, while uninhabited villages were once inhabited, and may have left a mark on many people while they existed. Of course, this is only one scale of encyclopedic worth, not the only scale; but presuming that they don't get it simply for existing, I can't think of any argument that would extend encyclopedic worth to beaches as a general class. Some beaches might be encyclopedic, to be sure, and some people below have argued that this specific one is among them; but the argument I think I am hearing from you simply claims that all true things are enyclopedic. That argument, if you mean it, should be directed towards changing Wikipedia policy as a whole, not towards individual AfDs. --Aquillion 08:29, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
- Yes. It lacks anything that would make it suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. An encyclopedia, as is noted in the link above, is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and when people search for a topic within one, they are searching for encyclopedic things that fall within that topic. Someone who searches the Wikipedia database for beaches is looking for encyclopedic beaches, not a list of every beach that exists. --Aquillion 03:16, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
- OK so we can delete anything we like, any particular reason to delete this real beach? Kappa 02:50, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
- Keep "Because of the easily reached deep areas Technical Divers also use Cove 2 for training." makes it notable in my opinion. A bit of a rewrite should turn this in a legitimate stub on a Washington diving spot. - Mgm|(talk) 10:01, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: Is there any independent verification that this particular cove is used for training more than any other beach? I searched a few SCUBA and Technical Diving web pages and none mentioned the cove. -- Corvus 23:55, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
- Keep per Kappa AndyJones 17:08, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
- "There are restrooms in the pier building and a great little Fish and Chips bar within easy walking distance." Swell. Hundreds of sites are used for technical diving training by someone or another. If it can be documented that a particularly notable diving group uses this cove for training in some way more important than those hundreds of others, I'll vote to keep; until something like that is shown, I'm casting a provisional delete vote, generally in agreement with Aquillion. At most, this could be merged into an article on whatever Seattle-area diving club uses it. Barno 17:19, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
- Keep per Mgm, but an encyclopedia is not an atlas, which is where arbitrary geographic information belongs. — Lomn | Talk / RfC 17:22, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
- Move to Seacrest Park. Beach is apparently part of a larger park... to me it makes more sense to list it under Seacrest Park (and expand the article to include information about the park and other coves) and leave a redirect here to the Seacrest Park article. There is just more potential for a full article there.--Isotope23 20:04, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
- Delete per Aquillon's excellent arguments. Denni☯ 02:41, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Befuddled by this particular article becoming a focal point for an inclusionist-vs.-deletionist debate. I vote both sometimes, personally, but I gotta say there are some things that don't make much sense in an encyclopedia, and this is a rather good example. -- SCZenz 01:57, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
- Just trying to keep wikipedia honest. Kappa 02:28, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
- Delete as per nom. If people really think this is useful / notable / needed information, then I'm partial to Isotope23's idea about creating Seacrest Park and putting it there. --Qirex 12:55, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
- Delete nn beach --JAranda | watz sup 14:52, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
- Keep as per Kappa. Also, can someone who wants this deleted please explain how this article is detrimental to Wikipedia? --Apyule 15:38, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
-
- The essential content of this article is that there exists a cove near Seattle that is used for various types of diving, and has certain local peculiarities related to depth, slope, permitted diving areas, restrooms, food, and parking. None of this information is encyclopedic. Moreover, the existing information about this location (see the Google results above) will not produce an encyclopedic article. Thus, we are left with a choice between an article that does not discriminate between its subject and any other cove in the Seattle area, or an article built on original research. Neither is what Wikipedia is. NatusRoma 19:32, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
- Delete Just a beach; not encyclopedic. Dottore So 11:55, 29 October 2005 (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.
