Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beastly Adventure

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 of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:29, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Beastly Adventure

Delete: Non-notable charity or expedition or whatever this is. Nothing on Google except self-added mentions on free sites. —Wknight94 (talk) 10:49, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, delusions of grandeur. Vizjim 10:50, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete self promotion, no evidence of notability. JPD (talk) 11:30, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. --Ed (Edgar181) 11:35, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete self-promotion. -- Docether 13:10, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep

Admittedly there is an element of self promotion here but I hope you will all agree that we are trying to further the interests of our selected charities - any forum is a good one where that is concerned, particularly as Wikipedia is often highly listed in Google (although below our own site). We are also of course, interested in creating awareness about our expedition and for a global rally that we are in the process of trying to establish.

I am a little confused as to what 'Non-notable' means. Does it mean that the expedition is not yet famous enough? Or does it mean that it is pointless? These might both well be the case but one could argue in that sense, that any expedition is "Non-notable". Who chooses what is 'Notable'?

The comment about us being self-mentioning on free sites is only true in as much as our website is hosted on a free provider. If you look at the 'newspaper' tab on our site you will see there has been, and continues to be, considerable interest in our expedition.

I am sure the page will be removed as it looks like the general consensus is for deletion and for the most part I take no issue with the points made above. Vizjiz, however, your comments are a little strange. I am assuming you are some kind of moderator for the site and as such it would seem inappropriate of you to attempt to insult contributors. I can't work out why you have said we have 'delusions of grandeur'. Perhaps driving around the world in rusty old tractor seems 'Grand' to you but I can assure it is not. As for 'delusional', I can only imagine that you either, don't know what it means, or simply like the expression. In any case you are not being particularly constructive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Copropraxia (talk • contribs)

Comment -- I'll address a couple of salient points here.

"Notability" is a general guideline that determines what topics are "encyclopedic" enough to be included in Wikipedia. A good place to start reading about notability is here. Lack of notability is one of the primary criteria for articles being listed for deletion (and thus ending up here).
Closely tied to notability is the issue of "self-promotion." A guideline about self-promoting articles (aka "vanity articles") can be found here, which should explain why they're not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia.
Actually, there aren't any "moderators" per se on this page. Anyone can suggest that an article should be deleted, and list it for deletion. Similarly, anyone can take a look at an article that's been listed for deletion and add their opinion to the discussion. Vizjim is a simple contributor to this site just like the rest of us, and his / her comments have no "cloud of authority."
You may want to check out WP:NOT and WP:DEL for some insight into why people are concerned about this article's inclusion in Wikipedia. You can always rewrite this article to provide verifiable evidence of notability, and to satisfy other objections.

Best, Docether 14:38, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Like Docether said. Having this deleted definitely would not say your expedition is pointless. It sounds like a very good cause and is probably even quite fun - but those aren't the criteria for what is included in Wikipedia. Wikipedia is designed to report on things that other people have reported on. Your best bet for saving this would be to elaborate on where your expedition has been written about. The http://www.lrm.co.uk/ link is for a magazine - it doesn't say where your expedition is mentioned. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:42, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --Ter e nc e Ong 14:46, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for my previous comment, which broke the WP:BITE guidelines. In compensation, I have done a major re-write of the article, removing the POV, advertising and first-person content, and adding in the newspaper coverage this trek has received. I think this still breaks the notability guidelines, but it's more of a balanced case than it was before. And, by the way, I have no more authority than you do. Vizjim 15:08, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Vizjim. In any case it is probably true to say that it is still perhaps too personal for Wikipedia for the moment. When we eventually get on with something more concrete we can come back on and add it. Until then delete away. Cheers.
Delete. Too bad about Vizjim's cleanup work, but still non-notable. (Unless they get themselves kidnapped or otherwise wind up in dire circumstances on CNN, sadly. Best of luck, at any rate.) Sandstein 19:20, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but don't get discouraged. I think it would be easy to establish notability in the future. If you finish and you have raised a ton of money, or set a notable record, or someone else starts doing it, etc. Aguerriero (talk) 21:56, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Simply a non-notable event. -- Kicking222 22:06, 31 May 2006 (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.