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.
Speedy Keep article has been around since 2004 with many edits. Movies from Flashdance to Coyote Ugly sparked phenomenons of table top dancing bars. Article may need more sources, but per
WP:CITE sources aren't required unless topics are controversial or questionable Tabletop dancing from stripping to college girls is not really controversial, especially when movies have been made. This is a case of "I don't like the way the article looks, so I will delete it instead of allowing sourcing to happen naturally through time." --DavidShankbone17:24, 24 February 2008 (UTC)reply
This isn't a great advert for WP if this is the best that could be achieved since 2004 for such an apparently notable term. Delete unless a radical proper rewrite is instigated.
MickMacNee (
talk)
17:37, 24 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Incorrect. We do if the topic is non-notable. The current content may be deficient, but if the notability of the topic is uncontroversial then that's a content issue, not an AFD issue.
FT2(
Talk |
email)14:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)reply
There are nine hits on "table dance" on the recent news of news.google.com. You could try
[1] for just one. Between 2003 and 2006, news.google.com has over 600 hits. How is the subject not notable?--
Prosfilaes (
talk)
19:27, 24 February 2008 (UTC)reply
That's a surmountable problem. The references exist, they just need to be added. That means the topic is notable, but the article needs to be fixed. And we don't delete articles on notable topics just because no one has added references yet. --
Ig8887 (
talk)
10:26, 25 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Keep -Could use some work, but like it or not this is part of the culture Change to Speedy Keep as references have been added which addresses the phrasing of the nomination
Mstuczynski (
talk)
20:18, 24 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Mick, if all of us guys could take you with us to a strip club so we could all get drunk and watch table dances, you'd appreciate the subject more. I agree that the article itself needs some better editing. Did anyone catch the part where the German "table dance" at Oktoberfest "is not of an erotic nature"? That's laugh-out-loud dumb.
Mandsford (
talk)
21:28, 24 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Yeah, thanks for the info, suffice to say, I know what the term means, and I see what the article says, hence the quite obvious candidacy for deletion.
MickMacNee (
talk)
21:30, 24 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Content of the article is irrelevant. Subject is the concern I have, and I'd have no objection to adding a {{rewrite}} tag to the current content. Content is actually a clean-up issue in this case, and as such, it isn't an AFD matter. Why? Because a quick search indicates plenty of sources for potential content. Thus the initial rationale isn't a concern. If you want to find sources, there's plenty out there. Take the opportunity to fix a problem rather than rushing to deletion.
FrozenPurpleCube (
talk)
21:45, 24 February 2008 (UTC)reply
I think this is the best aspect of Wikipedia: The community is essentially telling you that all the time, effort and keystrokes you spent to try and contract the encyclopedia, information that
in the month of January alone over 3,700 people wanted to read about on our site, you could have found more than enough resources to improve an article. Instead, you sought to delete it In February alone
5,000 people went to this article and the month is not even over. That is the problem with deletionism: they forget that what makes Wikipedia relevant is people actually finding an article they were curious about.--DavidShankbone21:57, 24 February 2008 (UTC).reply
I say we all take Mick out for a night at Hogs & Heifers. He'll be placing the photograph of it on his User page the next day! lol. --DavidShankbone22:32, 24 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Really? I don't think the article is nonsense. Nonsense would be something else entirely. The content of the article is coherent and understandable. The only problem is the one with sources. Which does seem to be addressable so it's not a great problem. You're certainly not convincing me that I'm wrong to say that there is potential for an article. You'd have been better off suggesting a redirect, that I could have gotten behind. But instead, you're saying this is the worst aspect of Wikipedia. Do you really think I find that persuasive? It's not. It's an argument unrelated to the article at hand, and quite a bit of hyperbole. And if there's anything that's a bad aspect of Wikipedia, it's that kind of behavior. You may wish to rethink your statements.
FrozenPurpleCube (
talk)
22:02, 24 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Keep; please do not attempt to delete things that need only expansion, sourcing, and improvement. We have a deletion criterion for things that are too short and undeveloped to have any value at all but that's clearly not the case here.
Antandrus (talk)22:40, 24 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Comment Has anyone noticed that
Dhartung added references? Unless the nom wishes to challenge these, I believe that he no longer has an argument for deletion and should withdraw.
Mstuczynski (
talk)
13:11, 25 February 2008 (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.