Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ballroom Dance in Canberra

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. Carlossuarez46 19:14, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ballroom Dance in Canberra

Ballroom Dance in Canberra (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

No indication as to how ballroom dance is different in Canberra than anywhere else in the world. This page is nothing but a gigantic yellow pages listing for dance instructors in the Canberra area, none of whom would warrant their own page. Corvus cornix 04:09, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, might as well be an ad for the area's social life. The notability of several seemingly random dance halls is none, and Wikipedia is not a place for regional dance scheduling either. Nothing different from any other town in any other country. Mentions in article attracting as many as 500 people a night to it's dancing nightlife. Many, many places could claim this. Neither they nor this are worthy of an article. PeteShanosky 04:30, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete; sometimes I wonder if some people don't realise this is meant to be an encyclopedia. This belongs on the noticeboard of their local library, not Wikipedia. Masaruemoto 05:22, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
• Do not delete, I am the user who created the article. Since reading the above three entries I have edited the article considerably. I refer to the Wikipedia definition of "Yellow Pages"; "The term Yellow Pages refers to a telephone directory for businesses, categorized according to the product or service provided.". I now refer to the Wikipedia definition of "Business". "In economics, business is the social science of managing people to organize and maintain collective productivity toward accomplishing particular creative and productive goals, usually to generate profit." Not one dance group referred to in the article has an entry in the Canberra yellow pages. Managing of people as nothing to do with anything in the article.There is no reference to any dance business in the article. Not one person or group referred to in the article gains or intends to gain any profit from anything to do with dance. Also not one teacher / instructor associated with any of the groups mentioned in the article, receives any remuneration, financial or otherwise, for their efforts.
  Furthur, all regional dance scheduling has been removed. --Brian Hickey 07:11, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

It is understood that you created this article and no doubt feel strongly about it's deletion. And though I do not doubt you when you say that there is no association with the people the article discusses, it's just not enough. When it comes down to it, the basic point is this: Wikipedia has notability standards, and this article does not meet them. PeteShanosky 12:41, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Bduke 07:44, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. No way to dance around it, Brian. It's just not notable. There's ballroom dancing all over the world. Unless you're dancing with kangaroos as partners (and winning competitions), there's no reason to single out Canberra. Clarityfiend 08:41, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, though I admire the creator's spunk and encourage him to keep working here. The trouble is, there's nothing about ballroom dancing in Canberra that's more special than Polka in Winnipeg or Tap dance in Ulan Bator. Aside from that significance problem, there are serious problems with reliable sourcing and true independent interest in the subject. That said, I think we should appreciate the time and effort put into this article and do our best to integrate its useful content into Culture of Australia, Art of Australia, and Dance in Australia. -- Thesocialistesq/M.lesocialiste 08:50, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Social. Twenty Years 13:36, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. I would like to see the work that Brian Hickey put in preserved somewhere but I can't think of an appropriate place although Wikitravel might be a place. However, I don't think that the article is right for Wikipedia. Capitalistroadster 02:34, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete in it's current form it does not meet the primary inclusion criteria, WP:N, and I don't think any of the supporting criteria are applicable for this article.Garrie 06:15, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Brian, I think your best bet is to write some articles about the studios if you can show they pass WP:CORP, or the idividual competitions if you can show they pass WP:N.Garrie 06:15, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment some editors really need to assume good faith and not bite the newcomers. The creator of this article has done so in good faith and with an active interest in writing on an unusual topic. With perhaps the exception of Capitalistroadster, no one has thought about perhaps how the article could be rewritten or fixed up so as to become notable. I'm fairly sure that the (imminent) deletion of this article will cause the writer of this article to leave, which is disappointing. Yet again the deletionists overrule without thought for the hard work and effort that newcomers put into the articles. Shame on you all. JRG 06:45, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, definitely a good faith contribution, no doubt about that. The material even seems to be sound, well-written, and relatively impartial. Perhaps it can be userfied rather than outright deleted? Unfortunately, it doesn't really meet inclusion criteria, but it would be nice to salvage something out of what must have been a lot of hard work. Lankiveil 12:40, 24 July 2007 (UTC).
• Comment I'm into dancing myself. However, this kind of information, while useful to a dancer, is not really suitable for an encyclopedia. Could someone with more spare time than me look at whether the Dance Wikia may be more suitable? Andjam 03:29, 25 July 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.