Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aggie Bonfire leadership

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 Keep. Arguements to keep, including valid application of WP:SUMMARY seem adequate, and there were few votes to delete at this time.Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Aggie Bonfire leadership

Aggie Bonfire leadership (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Nothing is notable about the leadership of the Aggie Bonfire. Should be covered adequately in Aggie Bonfire. It doesn't need a separate article. Twice failed PROD. Collectonian (talk) 23:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Merge Into Aggie Bonfire unless sources are forthcoming. Not notable enough on their own. Lawrence § t/e 23:09, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep This article is a subpage of Aggie Bonfire (recently featured on the main page) and covers details not included in the main article. Contrary to the information contained in the reason for the prod, the information contained here is not on the Aggie Bonfire page. Incorporating such detailed information into the article would give too much weight to the leadership structure. It satisfies all of WP:SUMMARY. — BQZip01 — talk 23:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
BTW, I find is disheartening that you posted this here without waiting for an explanation on the talk page. (note the times) — BQZip01 — talk 23:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Your "explanation" wouldn't have made a difference in my AfDing the article. At best, the leadership of the Bonfire should be a one paragraph mention. It is not notable and such detailed breakdown is not supported by verifiable, neutral, reliable sources nor was it covered to such depth in any independant sources. Giving it its own article gives it far more WP:UNDUE weight than having a paragraph added to the main bonfire article would. Collectonian (talk) 23:24, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  1. The tone portrayed with your quotes suggests you are being condescending to the explanation offered on the page and it is not very civil. My problem is more procedural than argumentative. My point is that you didn't even wait for a response.
  2. Sources do not need to be neutral, only the article does, though WP:V applies. Articles do not need to be "covered in such depth in independent sources"; this is not Wikipedia policy. Is there something contentious that needs such information covered in an outside source? If so, please tag it accordingly in the article.
  3. A detailed breakdown gives the reader more information without adding undue weight to such information in the main article IAW WP:SUMMARY.
— BQZip01 — talk 02:26, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
There is nothing uncivil in my tone nor is anyone required to "wait for a response" after a PROD. The PROD was removed, so I immediately AfDed no matter what you had said. The article is not appropriate. Do we have articles breaking down the leaderships structure of every fraternity and sorority out there? This article is no different than one of those would be. There is absolutely nothing encyclopedic or notable about how there being redpots and brownpots and yellowpots, etc, or how the roles are transitioned from the graduating seniors to the younger students. That level of aggiecruft (for lack of a better word), belongs in an Aggie oriented Wikipedia. The general leadership structure does not need such excessive detail, only a single paragraph in the main article noting the general management of the bonfire. A detailed breakdown isn't needed and by giving it its own article, undue weight has already been given to the topic.Collectonian (talk) 02:41, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Very well, let me be a little more precise. I'm not saying you can't put it here, but I wish you had at least waited for comments on the talk page IAW the directions on the template "...it helps to explain why you object to the deletion, either in the edit summary or on the talk page.". This article is different from sororities/frats in that the leadership is a bit complicated and requires some explanation. It was moved to a subtopic during the FA review and more detail added for clarity in the main article. — BQZip01 — talk 04:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
It's all pretty interesting stuff, so it should stay somewhere, but there don't appear to be enough notable and independent sources for the leadership stuff. Was there more sourcing? News coverage maybe from a non Texas A&M school paper? It just needs sourcing to pass WP:N. Lawrence § t/e 23:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
There is plenty of outside sourcing available for such a small article. Sources currently include CNN, Annals of the Association of American Geographers, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, and Scout.com. Can you please be more specific as to what should be improved? Perhaps you could simply tag the areas you feel need more sources. — BQZip01 — talk 02:26, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, you should add those sources to the article that are about the leadership. Otherwise, anyone can AFD this and it won't survive... Are the articles about the leadership? Why weren't they added...? Lawrence § t/e 02:58, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
??? They are already there. I'm confused. Furthermore, an article/book does not have to be written explicitly about a subject for something to be notable. — BQZip01 — talk 04:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep It looks like someone has added sources from a book written on the subject; Texas A&M's annual bonfire (which had the disaster in 1999) was unique among college traditions, and it's no surprise that there was a hierarchy of leaders that was as complicated as the anual engineering of the structure. It's as valid a spinoff as the article about the tragedy itself. Mandsford (talk) 02:50, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment While in the strictest sense this is "notable" it is not notable outside of the Bonfire event itself. If relevant at all it should be part of that article (though best condensed to a paragraph). It is very odd to have this inside-baseball information as a separate article, and have no separate article at all on the bonfire collapse, which takes up about half the parent article's space. If anything should be broken out for space or organizational reasons, it is the most notable aspect of the bonfire, that is, the most newsworhty and encyclopedic part: the collapse. Breaking this out instead shows middling judgement. --Dhartung | Talk 04:27, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Seems to be a proper application of "summary style" but could use some general sources. Ursasapien (talk) 11:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep if some better sources can be found. If so, it would be a decent use of summary style. --L. Pistachio (talk) 19:28, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete trivial details; a summary belongs in the main article.DGG (talk) 05:50, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
A basic summary already is in the article with more details here IAW WP:SUMMARY. — BQZip01 — talk 02:26, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Still needs the 3rd party independent sourcing about the leadership, though. Lawrence § t/e 02:59, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
see above — BQZip01 — talk 04:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - I don't want to formally issue a vote since I don't want anybody to misconstrue my intentions here, but I feel like Dhartung is absolutely right in this case, this subject's only notability is in the context of the bonfire itself. The information should be merged into Aggie Bonfire since it is the one thing that gives the "bonfire leadership" their notability. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 03:02, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep. I don't like this page. I find a level of detail here that is frankly tedious. However, the primary author has stated - correctly I think, that this article was spun off from the Bonfire article. It has weak, but passing notability in its own right, and absolute notability when viewed as part of Aggie Bonfire. That article is all ready at 49K, which really is the effective limit for the managable size of an article per WP:LENGTH. Merger of the full contents of this article to that one therefore would not be appropriate. This content could be greatly pruned and merged as some are suggesting; however, I don't see that policy requires the loss of the sourced information in this article. So, weak keep, and I'll tag this article w/ the subarticle template if I can get it to work. Xymmax (talk) 20:50, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Excellent points. What is that template? I'll add it myself. — BQZip01 — talk 23:40, 31 January 2008 (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.