Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Euro-Mir
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The result was Keep - Nomination withdrawn and while there is one argument for deletion, there is consensus to let this article be developed. (Non-administrator closing). --Tikiwont 10:28, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Euro-Mir
This page has no content apart from an infobox, and has been this way for nearly a week. With no real content, I'd say that this should be deleted. Ral315 » 00:10, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Did you spend even one second looking for sources or trying to improve the article? There are many such sources on the web and such rides are clearly notable by wikipedia rules. More information has been added to the article. Nick mallory 00:57, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- No, I didn't spend any time trying to improve it. That's not my problem. I'll be honest- in my opinion, there is no use keeping an article that is empty. People visit it, and have nothing to read. They may be able to learn basic information via the infobox, but unless something more is added, I don't think there's a reason to keep it. When the article is created, that's a perfect time to undelete the old edits, but until then, we've got a page with NO CONTENT. This article has been linked from Wikipedia:WikiProject Roller Coasters for a week, and nobody edited it. That seems to tell me that the article wouldn't have been updated soon were it not for this AFD. I don't think it needs to be deleted now, but it should have been deleted as it was. Ral315 » 01:34, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
-
- Nonsense. There was plenty of information in the info box. It said the Euro Mir is a roller coaster, it says where it is, it says when it was opened, it says what type it is and what sort of drive system it has, it says how high it is, who manufactured it, how long the track is, what its maximum speed is, how long the ride takes, how many riders per hour it can take, what kind of carriages it has and what the maximum G force experienced is. How exactly is that 'no real content'. It is sourced and gives another link for pictures of the ride. How is that 'nothing to read'? The point of the info box is to present information in a concise and uniform manner, which it did. Read the AfD page, it says you should make an effort to improve an article before nominating it for deletion. AfD is not a place to put articles which simply need to be improved, otherwise you could nominate about two million of them. Nick mallory 03:06, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- Then AfD is broken. Ral315 » 03:37, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- What do you mean it's broken? You said the article had no content, I pointed out that the info box itself had a lot of information, that a lot more information about this ride could be added with a little research and that the AfD page says articles should be improved if they can be, rather than be put up for AfD. This is clearly a notable subject and so therefore shouldn't be up on AfD. The fact that you are wrong in your assertions about this article does not bring the whole AfD procedure into disrepute. You yourself point to the existence of a wikiproject on roller coasters, wasn't that a hint that this very big roller coaster in a major european amusement park would be notable? Nick mallory 03:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- The article said nothing. Apart from peering at an infobox to find out that Europa-Park is a popular amusement park, and that the ride itself is popular, there was nothing to substantiate that it was notable. Sourcing consisted of a single external link. And, yes, as far as I'm concerned, articles should not be kept because the subject is notable, even if the article has ZERO SENTENCES. While I'm glad the article's been expanded (barely), and should now be kept, AfD is fundamentally broken if it would have allowed an article with no prose at ALL to be kept. Ral315 » 06:48, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
-
- "Peering" means actually reading does it? You said the article contained no useful information, I pointed out at length that you were wrong. Are you going to withdraw this now seeing as you, as nominator, accept that it's notable and that everyone who has commented on it also thinks it's notable too? Nick mallory 07:33, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- I effectively withdrew it quite a while ago: "I don't think it needs to be deleted now, but it should have been deleted as it was.". It's not my place to close the nomination, as far as I'm concerned, but I expected someone to have closed it already. I never denied that it was notable, merely that there was no evidence given to show that it was notable. But as far as I'm concerned, an article with absolutely no prose shouldn't be kept. Ral315 » 04:08, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- "Peering" means actually reading does it? You said the article contained no useful information, I pointed out at length that you were wrong. Are you going to withdraw this now seeing as you, as nominator, accept that it's notable and that everyone who has commented on it also thinks it's notable too? Nick mallory 07:33, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
-
- The article said nothing. Apart from peering at an infobox to find out that Europa-Park is a popular amusement park, and that the ride itself is popular, there was nothing to substantiate that it was notable. Sourcing consisted of a single external link. And, yes, as far as I'm concerned, articles should not be kept because the subject is notable, even if the article has ZERO SENTENCES. While I'm glad the article's been expanded (barely), and should now be kept, AfD is fundamentally broken if it would have allowed an article with no prose at ALL to be kept. Ral315 » 06:48, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- What do you mean it's broken? You said the article had no content, I pointed out that the info box itself had a lot of information, that a lot more information about this ride could be added with a little research and that the AfD page says articles should be improved if they can be, rather than be put up for AfD. This is clearly a notable subject and so therefore shouldn't be up on AfD. The fact that you are wrong in your assertions about this article does not bring the whole AfD procedure into disrepute. You yourself point to the existence of a wikiproject on roller coasters, wasn't that a hint that this very big roller coaster in a major european amusement park would be notable? Nick mallory 03:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- Then AfD is broken. Ral315 » 03:37, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- Nonsense. There was plenty of information in the info box. It said the Euro Mir is a roller coaster, it says where it is, it says when it was opened, it says what type it is and what sort of drive system it has, it says how high it is, who manufactured it, how long the track is, what its maximum speed is, how long the ride takes, how many riders per hour it can take, what kind of carriages it has and what the maximum G force experienced is. How exactly is that 'no real content'. It is sourced and gives another link for pictures of the ride. How is that 'nothing to read'? The point of the info box is to present information in a concise and uniform manner, which it did. Read the AfD page, it says you should make an effort to improve an article before nominating it for deletion. AfD is not a place to put articles which simply need to be improved, otherwise you could nominate about two million of them. Nick mallory 03:06, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep per User:Nick mallory. --RucasHost 01:23, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep per WP:STUB. I advise Ral315 to read it. DGG (talk) 03:26, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep per User:Nick mallory. As for Ral315, irresponsible deletion is frowned upon by the community. Making others do the dirty work and then blaming the Wikipedia policy is very unproductive.--Lenticel (talk) 04:19, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep per User:Nick mallory. Maxamegalon2000 05:51, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- Strong keep What a pointless nomination, whilst still a stub, this article contains all the essential information about the subject. Seaserpent85Talk 10:21, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep per above. Nothing to suggest this should be deleted.--Michig 11:22, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy keep. This was something that was easily fixed through the editorial process. Burntsauce 17:08, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: If I had encountered this "article" at the time that the nominator had, I would have nominated it for speedy deletion for being empty. Infoboxes are not articles. Articles need text. Corvus cornix 21:18, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
-
- I disagree, the infobox contained essentially all the information that the article currently has. The fact that there are quite sizable interwiki articles on the same subject should have been picked up on as well - I don't like the attitude that some editors have whereby it's not too much effort for them to nominate the article for deletion, but it is too much effort to attempt to expannd the article. Even a message to someone from the relevant WikiProject is more productive than nominating an article in need of expansion for deletion. Seaserpent85Talk 00:38, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- So what would have stopped you taking a minute to write a line of text instead of seeking to delete a notable article someone else had spent time on and also wasting everyone else's time here. If an article can be improved then improve it, or at least drop a note to the writer - all these things are set out on the AfD page as preferable to immediate deletion. Nick mallory 01:17, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete not enough content to warrent an article. No evidence of any notability. SefringleTalk 00:39, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep per most above. This should not have been AfD'd and was case of WP:SOFIXIT, not deletion. --Oakshade 03:04, 19 September 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.
