Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amphitheatre Anglois

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. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 01:12, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Amphitheatre Anglois

Article without sources on very obscure circus from the 18th century. Google test list 145 hits, including wikipedia mirror sites. Mecanismo | Talk 00:46, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, clean-up and expand. If not merge somewhere. Why would we want to delete material on early circus history? -- JJay 03:09, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

• It is an poorly written article which is orphan, uncategorized and filled with unverified information on a very obscure subject from the 18th century. If wikipedia strives to be an encyclopedia, it should try to host verified/verifiable information on any subject. --Mecanismo | Talk 03:42, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

• You tried to verify it, did you? Because writing style does not matter. -- JJay 04:18, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

• It seems you voted without taking the time to read the article that was submitted for deletion. I suggest you take a look at it and try to realize what I meant by "poorly written". About the verification, read above. --Mecanismo | Talk 04:39, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

• Do you require more sources? There are many available. But, please stop these seemingly misguided attempts to remove valuable information from the encyclopedia. Consider using some of the many templates available such as cleanup, or unreferenced. You can insult me all you want, but I intend to try and save as much vital early circus knowledge as I can. -- JJay 05:18, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

• Given that verifiable information appears to have been provided, keep. In my opinion, Wikipedia doesn't need notability requirements, and on this issue policy is not contrary to my opinion. —Simetrical (talk) 04:04, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. References have been provided, and thus no reason exists to delete the article. The Google test is obviously biased towards current information and completely irrelevant in a case like this. I would welcome more articles on historically popular theatres and entertainment venues. u p p l a n d 09:19, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. If this is truly the first permanent circus, as the Miami U site seems to agree, Strong Keep.--SarekOfVulcan 09:23, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep being the first permanent circus is certainly notable and I don't know how the nominator expected Google to cough up thousands of links to 18th century history. It's simply underrepresented, but that doesn't mean it's unverifiable. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:07, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This shouldn't be difficult. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 13:34, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. 145 hits for an 18th century circus is a large amount. Comparable to 145,000 hits about any Pokemon. -R. fiend 18:37, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - Thanks to JJay for adding the references. Ideally, research, beyond Google hit counts, should be done before doing a nomination. --Rob 13:26, 17 December 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.