Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Indianhead Mountain
- 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. Tyrenius (talk) 05:29, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Indianhead Mountain
- )
Article seems to be unencyclopedic.
Weak Delete The article has no content except some images and an infobox. I think this is a non notable ski resort and it is impossible to find reputable references. Therefore, should be deleted.t 07:11, 21 December 2007 (UTC) Change to Keep since now the article has content and references.[reply]
If this individual would have taken the extra five seconds needed to check the page history, he would have seen that it was in the middle of being uploaded and edited. Perhaps this should be a requirement before anyone can nominate a page for deletion - that they actually check the pages history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rickdrew (talk • contribs) 07:54, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And again, if this individual would bother actually looking at the page, he would see plenty of content, references and information. Since when does a personal opinion "a non notable ski resort" qualify as a reason to delete an entry? It does not, and goes against what the Wiki is! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rickdrew (talk • contribs) 08:56, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Please assume good faith. That is no need to be hostile. In response to your argument, please note that my notability assertion is not really an opinion. It is based on verifiability (see t 02:26, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Please assume good faith. That is no need to be hostile. In response to your argument, please note that my notability assertion is not really an opinion. It is based on verifiability (see
- Comment We delete things that are notable all the time. See a7 in ]
That's the WIKI's loss. Anyway, the statement that "the article has no content except some images and an infobox" is obviously incorrect. The WikiSki project is attempting to create a comprehensive guide to ski areas. I have reviewed all the reasons why a page would be deleted. This page qualifies for none of them. --Rickdrew (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 10:00, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. It's got some content now, and I can't see having an article on the subject undermining any of the policies or ideals here, minor though the resort may be. The article needs to be pruned though, as it kind of reads like a wiki-formatted mirror of their web page. We don't really need to have the hours of operation in there, do we? -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 10:55, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Meets notability. And I agree with the poster who said this was nominated without enough checking. Jeffpw (talk) 11:45, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep: I haven't checked previous versions so I cannot comment on the actions of the nominator, however, the article, as it currently stands, seems to meet our notability requirements. - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:51, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - appears to be notable enough. The article needs work, though, as it seems to lean towards promotional - the gallery looks to be a little more than really necessary for an encyclopedic article, for example. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:25, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep A bit on the promotional side per Tony Fox, but still meets general notability criteria. (Funny how often the otters tend to agree with a fox...) Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 18:41, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per WP:HEY. The article has been improved since the nomination, as indicated above. Still some minor items to clean up, but that's a separate issue. ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 20:26, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as above due to recent improvements to the article. ]
- Keep. The article is about a notable ski area in the Upper Peninsula. I can't quantify how notable it really is, other than it's somewhere between WP:TW for articles that are only 12 minutes old. A little bit of checking would have revealed that Indianhead is a fairly major ski area in the Upper Peninsula. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 05:42, 24 December 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.