Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Turf Tuesday

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 delete. Wizardman 22:22, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Turf Tuesday

Turf Tuesday (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Un-notable occasional meeting in a pub. Clinton may or may not have drunk or inhaled in the pub (no evidence provided) but that does not confer notability on the gathering of Scholars. No references that Turf Tuesday exists or is in itself notable. Petty student rivalries between different brands of scholars is not encyclopedic. TrulyBlue (talk) 10:15, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep The traditions of Oxford are obscure, but that doesn't mean they aren't notable. This event does seem to be regular, established over a number of years, and to involve a well-defined and notable group of attendees. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:19, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - OK; where is the Reliable Source that this is an "event [that] does seem to be regular, established over a number of years, and to involve a well-defined and notable group of attendees."? Reading below; this is a practical joke to which some well-meaning editors have given too much benefit of the doubt. TerriersFan (talk) 21:11, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Googling "Turf Tuesday" Rhodes (web or books) returns no relevant hits. Of the articles two references, one is original research and the other mentions Turf Tavern but not Turf Tuesday. This article is either a hoax or not verifiable. Either way, delete. Debate (talk) 10:34, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Not everything in the world is on Google. Is there anyone here around Oxford who can go and document it in the wild? Naturally in a way that doesn't infringe WP:OR Andy Dingley (talk) 10:52, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I've also searched Expanded Academic ASAP, Academic Search Premier(EBSCO) and Google Scholar. So far zero hits from about 7000 academic journals. "Documenting it in the wild" sounds suspiciously like OR to me. Debate (talk) 11:10, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
It's a social networking event. Why should it be in an academic journal? As a social networking event amongst people who have a greater than usual likelihood of becoming US president, that's notable. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:33, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep "The traditions of Oxford are obscure, but that doesn't mean they aren't notable." I whole-heartedly agree. Any of the members of the gathering itself are likely to count as "notable" under Wikipedia criteria. I also agree that the world isn't on Google. This article (which I did not create) is, in fact, an attempt to document something patently notable on the internet for the first time. Wikipedia should be proud of this. 163.1.7.205 (talk) 12:42, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - Where is the source that supports this comment, please? TerriersFan (talk) 21:11, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Lack of reliable sources means that it fails WP:V. It's as simple as that. We're not in the business of "documenting" anything "on the internet for the first time." Deor (talk) 11:52, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
We certainly are in that business, if the object is verifiable from outside the internet (you remember that place, the big blue room?). Now it's a narrow line between needing credible refs and no OR, but Google isn't the only spurce of knowledge. For one very obvious example, not necessarily relevant here, books are still a valid reference sources.
Now, has anyone found Turf Tuesday referenced in newspapers? That's one likely source for a credible reference. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:06, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, since you've registered a "keep" opinion, you must have some information on how this satisfies WP:V. I'd be interested to see it. Deor (talk) 12:31, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I went to the Turf and found it full of preppies. Enquiry showed it to be "Turf Tuesday", which stuck in my mind because of the dot-com connection. Some years ago mind. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:39, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but your personal experiences don't satisfy WP:V. Deor (talk) 16:07, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
of course it doesn't, you asked for information on why I voted to Keep. If someone has external citations for it too, then that would meet WP:V I don't, which I why I have voted for it rather than editing to add them. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:34, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, conclusively. I made this page as a joke for an email announcement of Turf Tuesday, which does exist. I concede that the page should not exist on Wikipedia. I was hoping that one of you administrators would get around to deleting it. Although I recognize good reasons, viz. those governing wikipedai content, this does not therefore mean that I must be motivated by them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.1.62.90 (talk)
If you are the original author (CecilJohnRhodes), please can you sign in and confirm that you want the article deleted? It can then be speedily deleted according to policy. At times like this, When people take a joke a bit too seriously, the Wikipedia red tape gets in the way of doing the right thing. Thanks. TrulyBlue (talk) 08:50, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep This is a real and significant phenomenon and there is no reason it shouldn't be included. The presence of this page also enriches the Turf Tavern page. The long history of association with Rhodes Scholars is clearly one of the distinctive and notable features of the Turf. 86.8.134.54 (talk) 11:21, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - Where is the source that supports this comment, please? TerriersFan (talk) 21:11, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Keep The photo from the Turf Tavern article, showing a blackboard in the Turf Tavern with Bill Clinton on it verifies the link between the Turf Tavern, Bill Clinton and Rhodes Scholars. This is more than enough for notability and the fact that posters here have attested to the fact that this happens on Tuesdays, I see no reason why it should not be included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.67.116.51 (talk) 15:29, 12 May 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.