Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Www.aerialshowgirls.com

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. alphaChimp^(talk) 01:24, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Www.aerialshowgirls.com

Appears to be a a vanity advertisement for a small group of performers. The website fails WP:WEB, with only 1,612 hits, and search engine results don't seem to indicate much, if any, notability. The article was speedied before as empty, but was recreated with text copied and pasted from several articles. Recommend salting. Coredesat talk. ^_^ 03:29, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Danny Lilithborne 04:09, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and protect per well-reasoned nomination. --Kinu ^t/_c 04:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete it with a spammer hammer. — Tivedshambo (talk) 05:48, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as advertising. JIP | Talk 10:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete not sure what this is, but it sure ain't an encyclopedia article. -Elmer Clark 23:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete - Absolutely delete it. Spam/advertising and does not belong here at all. ResurgamII 01:55, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
• I see that my article has been requested for deletion. I took a look at some of the users who requested this, and I saw college students, computer programmers, and writers, but nowhere did I see anyone that seemed to have actual experience on any aerial circus apparatus. I did not see any indication that ANY of these people would know anything about aerial circus arts other than what they type into a search engine and find. Plus I added the link to the "Aerial Tissu" page to provide people with more opportunities to see and learn more about tissu and all the other apparatus, and my expansion was deleted. If this is an encyclopedia that is available to people on the web to expand their knowledge I do not see why there shouldn't be a dozen links to aerialists' pages to give a wide variety of what is really out there instead of giving one link leading to one website. Being an aerialist that has trained for several years and worked hard I have never come across any information that says the one link that is available on the "Aerial Tissu" article should be crowned the best representation of aerialists and be the only one offered on Wikipedia. If I've missed that announcement I'd love to get that memo. The website that is linked to the article leads to a good aerialist, but there are more professionals out there describing this topic, and the more available links that are listed on Wikipedia, the more rounded a persons understanding of that topic can be. So if my article is going to be deleted, it better be because someone with SOME kind of aerial training, background, and knowledge tells Wikipedia that my descriptions of the apparatus are not accurate, and the photos and video that are provided are falsely representing aerial circus apparatus. It should not be deleted because some young college student and computer programmer, with NO first hand experience in the circus world, have too much time on their hands. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AerialShowgirls (talk • contribs)
  • The reason why your article is getting deleted is not because of experience or lack thereof in the circus world. It is a simple case of notability (see Wikipedia:Notability). Also your article can be seen as advertising, which is inappropriate on Wikipedia. In fact, I find your claim that your article should only be judged by people who themselves have experience in the circus world amazing. There is nothing stopping anyone from writing, or criticising, an article about something they don't have first-hand experience of themselves. All that is required is an understanding of Wikipedia's rules and policies. If I were to write an article about myself, should I forbid anyone who is not a 20-something Finnish male computer programmer from saying anything about it? Of course not. JIP | Talk 11:26, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Then perhaps the article "Aerial Tissu" should be edited, and the link to www.aerialexperience.com should be removed too because when you click on that link, in the first paragraph it says, "From the meeting room to the stadium, aerial tissu is an emotionally moving act utilized with great success to entertain audiences. Perfect as a part of a symphony orchestra presentation, corporate meeting, tradeshow, sporting event or television production this creative aerial ballet can help to make a strong statement for your product and your company." Sounds like a suggestion to hire someone...like an advertisement. If that is not considered advertising than how is my article different when I offer a brief description of several aerial apparatus and present a link leading to more images and in-depth descriptions just as the article "Aerial Tissu" has? Plus, I was not saying that I think your lack of knowledge in circus should cancel your opinion. I was saying I think your lack of circus knowledge is limiting in deciding that one website deserves to be available as a link, but not another. Plus like I said before, why shouldn't there be at least a dozen links to aerialists' websites to provide the most accurate representation of Aerialists and the performance art itself. Any beginning aerialist is going to search online a lot to see photos and video of other aerialists to see the different styles and latest moves so they have something to aspire towards. I know this because I've been there searching myself when I was a beginner, and many of the students I teach are doing this now. Therefor having more info. available instead of less on an encyclopedia, in my opinion seems like a smart idea. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AerialShowgirls (talk • contribs)

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.