Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Non-historical re-enactment groups
- 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. --Coredesat 07:49, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Non-historical re-enactment groups (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
Original research and non-notable topic. Googling "Non-historical re-enactment" returns practically nothing. Masaruemoto 03:11, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete this is nonsense. KazakhPol 03:52, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Sounds like your average Saturday night, actually. --Charlene 05:41, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, WP:OR applies. Lankiveil 06:11, 21 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- Delete - This certainly isn't nonsense, KazakhPol — my first job was working for a place that ran these (along with other LARPs) — but it is an unsalvageable mess of OR - iridescenti (talk to me!) 17:48, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry to have upset so many people. Would someone please explain how such an article which trys to highlight the differences would be approached ? User: Guthroth
- In this case, read WP:N, WP:OR and WP:CITE - these are the key policies of Wikipedia and what all the articles up for deletion (not just yours) are accused of violating. Basically, everything you say here needs to have been also said somewhere else by somebody else, and you need to show references to prove it - there's more to it than that, but that's the issue here - iridescenti (talk to me!) 20:59, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- weak keep but there needs to be some reference to some discussion of this as a genre. (Trying to google this sort of a term is not usually productive). DGG 03:37, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep But fix - as it exists this article is a candidate for deletion per wp:or and by extension it fails wp:n and by omission it fails wp:cite, but it does not meet/warrant WP:CSD. The author asks a fair question - how do I appease the wiki-police. The answer, in my opinion, is to find published sources that refer to this genre as a whole, to excerpt facts from those sources as the basis of this article, and to properly cite them. It appears from the six or seven links included that these groups exist in sufficent numbers that wp:n may be achievable, assuming some reporter or other journalist has covered an event or group. The author's job is to go find the published sources to affirmatively claim notability and get away from original research. On another point, not withstanding the genral wiki-view to wp:assume good faith, the assertion that this content is nonsense is an individual point of view - which is balanced by my view that the author is working sincerely to cover a real topic - although that topic is admittedly an examination of a whole genre of wierdos. Alas, neither point of view is relevant per wiki-policy. --James.lebinski 23:52, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.
